Full text of "Chinese landscape painting"

See other formats

fffl=

THE CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF ART

Ingalls Library

CHINESE

LANDSCAPE

PAINTING

by Sherman E. Lee

THE CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF ART, CLEVELAND, OHIO

>v. i

THE CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF ART

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Harold T. Clark
Ralph M. Coe
Edward B. Greene
Leonard C. Hanna, Jr.
Mrs. Albert S. Ingalls

Severance A. Millikin
Laurence H. Norton
Mrs. R. Henry Norweb
Ralph S. Schmitt
G. Garretson Wade

Lewis B. Williams

LENDERS TO THE EXHIBITION

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
Bowdoin College Museum of Fine
Arts, Brunswick, Maine
Fogg Art Museum, Harvard Univer¬
sity, Cambridge, Massachusetts
The Art Institute of Chicago
The Detroit Institute of Arts
Honolulu Academy of Arts
John Herron Art Museum, Indi¬
anapolis

Nelson Gallery of Art and Atkins
Museum, Kansas City, Missouri
Museum of Art, Rhode Island School
of Design, Providence
The Metropolitan Museum of Art,
New York

The Dudley Peter Allen Memorial
Museum, Oberlin College, Oberlin,
Ohio

City Art Museum of St. Louis
Seattle Art Museum
The Toledo Museum of Art
National Gallery of Art (Rosenwald
Collection), Washington, D.C.

Musee Guimet, Paris
Museum fur Ostasiatische Kunst,
Cologne

The Tokyo National Museum
The Osaka Municipal Museum
Richard B. Hobart, Cambridge,
Massachusetts
Eli Lilly, Indianapolis
Nu Wa Chai
Dr. R. Breuer, Beirut
Kanichi Sumitomo, Oiso
Kichizaemon Sumitomo, Kyoto
Richard C. Rudolph, Los Angeles
Mrs. Walter Sedgwick, London
Mrs. Brenda Seligman, London
Frank Caro, successor to C. T. Loo,
New York

Durlacher Brothers, New York
Heeramaneck Galleries, New York
Walter Hochstadter, New York
Howard Hollis and Company,
Cleveland

Rosenberg and Stiebel, New York
The Bamboo Studio, New York

ERRATA

CONTENTS

p. 144, 9, on silk, not on paper. Page

p. 145, 14, il, p. 28, not p. 27. 4

p. 145, 15, it. p. 32, notp. 15.
p, 146, 30, il. p. 50, not p. 51.

p. 147, 32, il. p. 56, not p, 57. 11

p. 147, 34, il. p. 59, not p. 58. 23

p. 147, 36, il. p. 58, notp. 60.

. . . . . 43

p. -|49( 43, Hung Chili, not Hung Chin.

p. 150, 53a, il. p. 79, not p. SO. . 59

p.150, 54, il. p.80,. notp. 79. . 73

p. 150, 55, il. p. 82, notp. 81.
p. 155, 97, il. p. 121, 122, not p. 117.

p.158,124, il. p.133 , not p.132. 102

. 115

. 142

. 144

. 159

. 169

THE CLEVELAND M

BOARI

Harold T. Clark
Ralph M. Coe
Edward B. Greene
Leonard C. Hanna, Jr.

Mrs. Albert S. Ingalls

LENDERS TO THE

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
Bowdoin College Museum of
Arts, Brunswick, Maine
Fogg Art Museum, Harvard Ur
sity, Cambridge, Massachuseti
The Art Institute of Chicago
The Detroit Institute of Arts
Honolulu Academy of Arts
John Herron Art Museum,
anapolis

Nelson Gallery of Art and A
Museum, Kansas City, Missoi
Museum of Art, Rhode Island S<
of Design, Providence
The Metropolitan Museum of
New York

The Dudley Peter Allen Merr
Museum, Oberlin College, Obi
Ohio

City Art Museum of St. Louis
Seattle Art Museum
The Toledo Museum of Art
National Gallery of Art (Rosenwald
Collection), Washington, D.C.

Heeramaneck Galleries, New York
Walter Hochstadter, New York
Howard Hollis and Company,
Cleveland

Rosenberg and Stiebel, New York
The Bamboo Studio, New York

CONTENTS

Page

Preface and Acknowledgments . 4

Introduction . 5

The Beginnings of Landscape . 11

The Sung Dynasty . 23

The Yuan Dynasty . 43

The Ming Dynasty . 59

The Wu School . 73

Tung Ch’i-ch’ang and Some Individualists . 93

The Ch’ing Dynasty: Orthodox Painters . 102

The Individualists . 115

Bibliography . 142

Catalog . 144

Addenda— Foreign Loans . 159

Index of Artists . 169

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The bringing together of objects in a great loan exhibition is an occasion of im¬
portance for the casual visitor, but for the connoisseur and student it is a never-to-be-
forgotten opportunity where objects carefully selected from the widest possible sources
can be compared and studied in the juxtapositions which such an exhibition makes easy.
The Cleveland Museum of Art is therefore very grateful to the lenders who have made
this exhibition possible, and particularly to those who have aided in giving it the inter¬
national flavor which has added so immeasurably to its stature. The lenders are listed else¬
where but with them should be recorded the following who so graciously aided in the
securing of foreign loans: Bluett and Sons, London, for aid on English loans; Mine, Jean-
nine Auboyer and Georges Salles for assistance from Musee Guimet, Paris; Seiichiro
Takahashi, Chairman, and the Commission for Protection of Cultural Properties, for Jap¬
anese loans; Shujiro Shimada of the Kyoto National Museum for loans from Kanichi Su¬
mitomo and Kichizaemon Sumitomo; Junkichi Mayuyama, Tokyo, for numerous favors
in forwarding Japanese communications; and Prof, Dr, Werner Speiser, Cologne.

An exhibition catalog can be an ephemeral thing so that the grant of monies
through Hanna Fund and its President, Leonard C, Hanna, Jr., was of the utmost impor¬
tance; it made possible instead the publishing in far more permanent form of this book
on the development of Chinese landscape painting, the objects in the exhibition being
used as cogent material and almost all being illustrated.

Many are the scholars to whom we are indebted for specific information, for
translations and many seal identifications, and for recordings in Chinese sources: Laur¬
ence Sickman, Director, Nelson Gallery of Art and Atkins Museum, Kansas City, Missouri;
Dr, Gustav Ecke, Honolulu; Aschwin Lippe, Associate Curator of Far Eastern Art, The
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; Richard Edwards of the Fogg Art Museum for
most of the aid in these matters; Wen Fong for translations of inscriptions on some of the
paintings in The Cleveland Museum of Art; James Cahill, New York, for aid on some of
true Yuan paintings; and Tseng Hsien-ch'i, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, for assistance
to Mr. Edwards,

Photographs of Chinese scenery have been made available through the cooperation
of Osvald Siren {those on pp. 50, SO, 118) and Walter Hochstadter (those on pp. 29, 31,
38, 81, 84, 90). For photographs in the exhibition we are grateful for those furnished by
the various owners and for others made by Richard Godfrey, the photographer of the
Museum,

Staff members, such as William E. Ward, Miss Dorothy Sasak, and Miss Gay Samp-
liner, have been of invaluable aid in bringing the material into final form. But above all
we are indebted to Dr. Lee for his selection of the material shown and for his ability to
secure the gracious and generous aid which has made this exhibition and this book pos¬
sible.

July 27, 1954 William M, Milliken

Director, The Cleveland Museum of Art

INTRODUCTION

Landscape is the great subject of Chinese painting and Westerners are
properly amazed at the very early date of its first full expression. At this time
in the ninth and tenth centuries there was nothing in Europe that could be
remotely considered a developed landscape art. And yet, if we go further back,
to the Mediterranean world in Hellenistic times, we find that there was once
a creative and forward looking Occidental landscape art; and even more, that
the high state of that art, as seen in the frescoes of the Odyssey in the Vatican,
predated a comparable stage in the history of Far Eastern landscape painting.
The preconditions for landscape include a non-anthropomorphic nature philoso¬
phy. In the Hellenistic and Roman world this was present in a philosophy for
which Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura was the prime literary expression. Chris¬
tianity changed all this and landscape was buried in the West, not to re¬
appear until a more sympathetic attitude to nature was evinced by the thinkers
and doers of the post-Renaissance. The early pure landscapes of Claude, Pous¬
sin, Rubens, and Ruisdael are seventeenth-century creations, but still domin¬
ated in number by the more acceptable categories of figure painting. The de¬
velopment of landscape into a dominant category in Western painting occurs in
the “materialistic” nineteenth century.

In China nothing occurred to seriously interrupt or reverse the steady
growth of a generally accepted philosophy of nature that provided a perfect
climate for great landscape painting. While the very first evocations of nature
are magical with a heavy overlay of an earlier animism, there is also present
an idea of universal orientation. The magic mountain80 is not only an abode of
strange spirits, but an axis from which the four directions emanate. This direc¬
tional significance remains in early landscape painting. Ku K’ai-chih wrote in
the fourth century, How to Paint the Cloud Terrace Mountain ,51 "Now, in the
middle section to the east, I would draw ...” This orientation concept leads
us away from the magical to the first of the two dominant Chinese philoso¬
phies which were all-important to a landscape art.

Confucianism, originally and as it developed, was not merely a system
of ethics for humans, but was a rational world view of remarkable consistency.
While the Analects (Lun Yu) may regard nature with a human bias in the
famous quotation, “The wise men find pleasure in water; the virtuous find
pleasure in mountains,” the almost contemporary Conduct of Life (Chung

Note: The superior figures in the text refer to the books and articles listed in the Selected Bibliography,
p. 142. Diacritical marks have been omitted from Chinese names and words.

Yung), a favorite compilation of later philosophers, assumes a more general
and universal position: “Nature is vast, deep, high, intelligent, infinite and
eternal.” In this view nature’s principles exist for their own sake with no
ulterior or fathomable motives. Since the natural order or principle (Li) per¬
vades all things, all things are worthy subjects of attention. Further, since we
can observe the fallibility of man, the apparent infallibility of nature makes it
the subject in which Li can be shown in its purest form. The first full pictorial
expression of this rational attitude will be seen in the Northern Sung period;
but it was ever present in the minds of earlier painters and critics. Thus the
first and most important of the six pictorial canons listed by Hsieh Ho in the
fifth century, “animation through spirit consonance,”61 refers as much to a ra¬
tional correspondence of painting to principle as to mystic responsiveness to the
Taoist Way of the Universe.51 In general the end result of Confucian thought
on nature was oriented to both humanity and nature. The great tenth-century
painter, Ching Hao, writes with both morality and principle in mind:

Every tree grows according to its natural disposition. Pine trees may grow
bent and crooked, but by nature they are never too crooked . . . They are
upright from the beginning. Even as saplings their soul is not lowly, but
their form is noble and solitary . . . Indeed the pine-trees of the forests
are like the moral character of virtuous men which is like the breeze.51

The second controlling attitude, Taoism, was more immediately derived
from magical attitudes. But in its purest form Taoism provided the intuitive
and direct response to nature which was as necessary as rationality. When the
seventeenth-century individualist painter, Shih-t’ao, equated the mountain with
the wave (water— mysterious female), he was returning to ancient Taoist con¬
cepts as expressed in Tsung Ping (early fourth century).

In this manner, one may represent in a picture the sublime beauty of the
Sung and Hua mountains and the spirit of Hsuan Fin (Mysterious Female-
Spirit of the Valley) which dwells therein.51

Tsung, in turn, was referring to the source of most Taoist thought, The Tao-te-
ching (fourth century B.C.):

The Valley Spirit never dies.

It is named the Mysterious Female.

And the Doorway of the Mysterious Female

Is the base from which Heaven and Earth sprang.

It is there within us all the while;

Draw upon it as you will, it never runs dry.

— tr. A. Waley, The Way and Its Power

—where the valley is thought of as the low point, the gatherer of waters, and
hence female. The Taoist intuition of nature was ever the mystic half of the

Chinese landscape painter, even when it was later cloaked in the garb of Ch’an
Buddhism, the only form of Buddhism that provided a drive for land¬
scape painting. All of these viewpoints, magical, Confucian, and Taoist, make
it clear that there is more than the merely literal to the Chinese term for land¬
scape: Shan-shui, “mountain-water” (picture).

But philosophers do not paint and artists do. In this the Chinese painter
is no different from his Western counterpart, so well described by Focillon in
The Life of Forms in Art:

He is human; he is not a machine. Because he is a man I grant him every¬
thing. But his special privilege is to imagine, to recollect, to think, and
to feel in forms.

Just so the Chinese. When Tsung Ping refers to the already quoted passage
from the Analects he says, “But the lovers of landscapes are led into the Way
by a sense of form.”51

Chinese painting then is concerned with forms seen or imagined by the
eyes of a Chinese, but still forms. And while it is true that a Westerner can
never see a Chinese painting in a completely Chinese way, the reverse is
equally true. Where the Chinese sees the very real quality of brushwork as
related to calligraphy, he also imagines the accepted cliches of a “pure and
noble spirit . . . above the ordinary crowd.” Where the Westerner sees an
original handling of the problem of space composition he also imagines his
cliches: the metaphysical significance of the empty silk or the “lovely and dec¬
orative” colors of the later Chinese professional painter-artisan. We are not
Chinese nor ever can be, but we can discipline ourselves to understand some¬
thing of that country’s approach to her own painting. This can be done with
integrity only if we, at the same time, maintain our “Westernness,” especially
in the sense of our objective knowledge of materials and technique and, above
all, of style, of forms. Each Chinese painting exists. There it is before us. If to
each successive generation of Chinese it was a different painting, how much
more so for us. But now it is “our” painting. We can try to see what it was;
we see what it is. Both visions are valid and both are taken for granted here.

To the Chinese the purest of the arts is calligraphy for it is pure brush
and pure idea,13 the two farthest extremes of material and ideal combined
into an inseparable whole. To the Chinese the value judgment of a picture
rests primarily on its brushwork as related to, and derived from, calligraphy.
The nearest we Westerners can get to the essence of what a Chinese sees in
Chinese painting is our concept of touch. Touch differentiates one artist from
another and the artist from the non-artist. If we think of the difference be¬
tween the touches of Rembrandt and of Bol, or between the touch of Vermeer

and that of Van Meegeren, then we are thinking of something not unlike the
concept of brushwork in a Chinese painting. Look at the last picture in the ex¬
hibition, the little page by Ch’ien Tu (117, il. p. 141). Study the circles used
for foliage in the background. Note their fatness, as if they were filled with
water. Look at the detail of the Wang Hui (84, il. p. 104) and note the precision
and shape of each stroke as it falls on the paper in an almost measured ca¬
dence. Then turn to the freer examples such as the Wen Cheng-ming (56, il. p.
84) or the Kuo Hsi (13, il p. 26), and consider them as masterpieces of touch.

The second of the more obvious barriers is the Chinese use of type forms.
Not that they did not go to nature, even in the form of sketching. We have
enough literary evidence that they did. Again Ching Hao:

Astonished by this curious spectacle (a gnarled and gigantic pine) I
walked around and admired it. The next day I returned with my brushes
and sketched some of the pine trees. After drawing several they seemed
real to me.51

or Wang Li (fourteenth century):

As long as I did not know the form of the Hua Mountain, how could I
make a picture of it?56

But still the Chinese landscape is primarily a complex of brush symbols for
nature.12 Ruskin would not have liked it, for it does what Claude and other man¬
nerist or ideal painters did. They used types: type elms, type rivers, type forests,
intended to be taken as an aesthetic and ideal re-creation. One could not copy
nature, one could only create a landscape painting.

Such an achievement for the Chinese could only be accomplished
through brushwork. But how varied, rich, and complex that brushwork could
be! We have more readily accepted the single brush stroke type of Chinese
painting, the type of the Southern Sung period (20, il. p. 38), and we have
often identified this one of many styles with the style of Chinese painting. But
there were other ways used at all times and just as deserving of our attention.
Consider the method of Kuo Hsi (eleventh century):

Having drawn a picture, he would retouch here and add there; augment
and adorn it. If once would have been sufficient, he would go back to it
for the second time. If twice would have been enough he would go back
to it the third time . . . From beginning to end he worked as if lie were
guarding against a strong enemy.31 (13, il. p. 26)

In order to help this understanding of touch, relationship to nature,
and variety of technique, we have drawn, to a limited extent, on old and mo¬
dern Occidental drawings and on photographs of the Chinese countryside, and
have used these in juxtaposition with comparable Chinese landscapes in the

exhibition. These secondary aids may assist in making the scrolls less strange.
At the same time the visual comparisons will highlight the real differences
of the Chinese eye from the Western eye, or of the real landscape from the
painted one.

Chinese landscape painting is an aristocratic production from begin¬
ning to end. Painting came after writing. Literacy was the first prerequisite
and the second was literary knowledge. How could one use a brush if one could
not write, and write well? How else could one know of Li and the first re¬
quirement of good painting, “animation through spirit consonance?” The schol¬
ar was, therefore, the principal class from which the great painters came. Fur¬
ther, the scholars painted for scholars. The standard formats for painting, the
hanging scroll, the handscroll, and the album, were portable. They could be
hung at will or carried wherever the owner wished. With the possible excep¬
tion of the hanging scroll, the formats were intimate, to be seen by only one
person or a few friends at a time. If we wish to experience something of the
private and exclusive joy of the scholar-painter-collector, we must think of
books. And there we are again back to the word literary which is perhaps the
best definition of the term for the creative painters from at least the twelfth
century on: wen jen hua, gentleman’s painting. But since only gentlemen were
literary— the literary man’s school. Sir Kenneth Clark" has compared this con¬
cept with that in England involving the appreciation of Claude. Claude’s land¬
scapes and their titles were full of just those classical ruins and allusions that
were of interest to the literate man. In China this feeling of aristocratic exclu¬
siveness extended to the appreciation of nature. This poem of Po Chu-i (772-
846) perfectly expresses the literary man’s feeling being above and apart from
the crowd:

The snow has gone from Chung-nan; spring is almost come.

Lovely in the distance its blue colors, against the brown of the streets.

A thousand coaches, ten thousand horsemen pass down the Nine Roads.

Turns his head and looks at the mountains — not one man.

— tr. A. Waley, More Translations from the Chinese

The idea of the literary man’s school was further developed in the early
seventeenth century by the application of the term “Southern School” to the lit¬
erary style. Its opposite, the professional-artisan school, was then called “North¬
ern.” While not all of the “Northern” School deserved the scorn of the critics,
in general the literary school was the more creative one, especially in land¬
scape and particularly after the fourteenth century. There is, statistically speak¬
ing, some justification for the geographic distinction even though it is gener¬
ally understood as a qualitative description. In the landscape listings of Kuo

Jo-hsu,02 who wrote in the eleventh century, twenty-four of thirty-seven paint¬
ers are from the North; but fifty-three of sixty Yuan or later painters in this
exhibition, for example, came from the South. In part it is because the literati
were driven there, first by the Tartars and Mongols, and later, in the seven¬
teenth century, by the Manchus. Also, the milder climate of the South with its
accompanying rich vegetation made it a favorite residence for the economically
self-sufficient, including the scholar-official and his patrons. The life of retire¬
ment or the retreat of the recluse was more feasible in the South. But even more
than these objective reasons there remains an apparently natural affinity of the
South for landscape. The earliest landscape in the exhibition (1, il. p. 11) is
from the South. Buddhism’s greatest triumphs were in the North and with
them appeared the greatest efflorescence of a public and a figural art. The South
remained the stronghold of Taoist thought, aristocratic painting, and of
emerging landscape art.88

Landscape paintings made up a major part of the great Chinese col¬
lections from the Sung Dynasty on. While the fact that a painting comes from
a famous collection does not automatically prove it good, such a provenance is
at least a good character reference. The growth of the Chinese painting collec¬
tions in this country, beginning with Boston, the Freer Gallery in Washington,
and later with Kansas City, has now spread rather more widely than we im¬
agine. And so one can now present a selection of landscape paintings not only
of intrinsic interest, but also with accompanying pedigrees in the form of
owners' seals and colophons that read rather like a blue book of the great
collections: for example, there are twelve paintings from the Imperial Ch’ien
Lung collection (1736-1796); four paintings from the collection of the famous
connoisseur, the Korean salt merchant An Ch’i (1683-ca. 1742); ten paintings
formerly belonging to Liang Ch’ing-piao (1620-1691), perhaps the greatest
connoisseur of all; and five paintings from the extensive, if uneven, holdings
of Hsiang Yuan-pien (1525-1590). All the standard formats of landscape paint¬
ing are well-represented. The numerical representations from the various
periods are comparable, allowing for the greater surviving quantity of post-
Yuan painting. Some of the great painters are missing but in general the as¬
sembled exhibition gives an adequate and authentic view of Chinese landscape
art.

THE BEGINNINGS OF LANDSCAPE

The earliest landscape representations in China take us back to at least
the Late Chou period (fifth-third century B.C.). Most of these occur in cast
metal; usually stylized trees or mountains on bronze mirrors and inlaid bronze
vessels, eT with one rare example in carved jade. But a unique example of even
a semi-pictorial technique is to be found in the representation of trees incised
on a thin-shelled bronze ewer (1, il. p. 11), reputedly from Ch’ang Sha in South

China. The striated and rather naturalistic technique has affinities with some
slightly later stone reliefs from West China (Szechuan).50 While the delicately
but simply incised lines on the ewer differentiate four tree types and, perhaps,
grasses, these elements are distinguished by symbolic over-simplifications which
clearly reveal a lack of interest in landscape as such, other than as a magical set¬
ting for figures performing magical rites.

While the pictorial means for landscape representation at this time were
comparatively meager, the literary means were much more varied and complex,

and we find numerous poems in the Book of Odes and other sources which re¬
veal the beginnings of a sensitive awareness of nature, but again as a setting,
either for moral or narrative purposes or, as in the bronze ewer, for magical
evocation.

Grandly lofty are the mountains, with their large masses reaching to the
heavens- From those mountains was sent down a spirit, who produced the
birth of Fu and Shan*#

The succeeding Han Dynasty (206 B.d-A.D. 220) was a time of great
development in figure and space representation with landscape remaining in
a secondary position as a setting for the dominant figures* By this time two addi¬
tional modes of landscape portrayal may be distinguished.67 Again these are in
media other than painting though the evidence is clear that the gap is due to
the destruction of painted material* Stamped pottery tomb tiles, common
enough as to material, sometimes use a mountain pattern as a base line for
scenes of the chase or for magical bird-men, the spirits of the mountain and
untamed nature* One unusual tile (2, detail on title page) presents the two
mountain styles together on three friezes, one above the other. The uppermost,
with the bird-man of Chinese origin, uses the continuous wave mountain range.

# From the Ode “Sung Kao/* tr. by Legge in M, Muller, Sacred Books of the East , V. 3, p. 423*

a foreign import which can be traced to the Near East* The middle and lower
friezes have figures of foreign origin, the hunt and chase motif imported from
the Near East by way of the Steppes,60 but the landscape base line is of native
inspiration* It consists of linear and rhythmically undulating mountain sym¬
bols of a cloud-like nature* This form can be found as early as Late Chou,
being used for clouds, mountains, or even as linear decoration out of which
landscape elements sprout, a fine example of a decorative form preceding and
giving origin to a natural one* Other stamped tiles (3, ik p* 12) from West
China show a surprisingly real and spacious setting for a hunting scene based
on observation and possibly evolving from such earlier representations as the
bronze basin*

The specifically Chinese linear and rhythmical landscape setting is further
developed in the later Han Dynasty and is found on many stamped or molded
and glazed pottery vessels (4, il. p. 12)* By this time cliffs, mountains, rocks,

and trees are clearly differentiated but without a sense of relative scale and
without loss of the playful movement of the line. These, too, are settings for ani¬
mals and figures of magic import.

A pathetically few paintings remain from the late Han or early Six
Dynasties period (third-fourth century).22 They are found on bronze mirrors,
inside the lids of bronze boxes, or on lacquer bowls or boxes, and on white slip-
coated tomb tiles. Of the few, even fewer show landscape elements and the ex¬
ample in the exhibition (5, il. p. 13) is unique in its keenness of observation and
its obviously experienced use of the brush as a descriptive rather than a decora¬
tive tool. Still the tree indicates a setting only. It is a prop saying “the scene
is out-of-doors.” Space is indicated not by landscape but by the figures, some in
three-quarters view and one kneeling, placed above and hence beyond the ad¬
jacent standing man. In contrast to this very direct and simple setting is the
complex and exuberant landscape developed from the linear-rhythmical style
(6, il. p. 14) by about the fourth century. The incised bronze surface seems alive,
not only because of the animal-chase frieze in front but also through the land-

6 ' derail !

scape backdrop with its differentiated banana and ginko trees, overlapping
angular rocks, overlapping rounded mountains, and rippling water. Still there
is no real space, even in a limited cell- like sense, for the swaddled figure to the
right of the pond is simply another flat shape superimposed on the flat land¬
scape behind.

The succeeding few centuries have left us few major painted land¬
scape monuments. From the late fourth or early fifth century we have the scroll
by Ku Kfai-chih, in the British Museum, which contains a sophisticated rend¬
ering of an incidental and archaic landscape.®0 The numerous fifth- and sixth-
century Buddhist frescoes in northwest China at Tun Huang77- 40, 41 establish
space control in a landscape as a setting for primarily narrative purposes. These
space cells were the means of enclosing figures; and the recession of successive
mountain or rock ranges was developed as a setting for more expansive story¬
telling or more violent scenes of action.60 The somewhat later painted banners
from Tun Huang show the landscape methods on a smaller scale (8 & 9, 9 il. p.
16). The border fragment suggests space and setting by raising the ground

Anonymous

plane and by marking it off with bands of hummocks and grasses. The votive
picture sets forth, within the linear-rhythmical format, more solid individual
elements, ledges, trees, and cliffs. But it is retrogressive in its curiously naive
use of an almost perfectly symmetrical landscape arrangement, as if nature her¬
self were made up of religious implements which could be arranged to conform
with the iconic rectitude of the deity and donors.

Clearly the creation of a pure landscape art was beyond or beneath
the interests of anthropomorphic Buddhism, and charming or interesting as all
the “landscapes” from Tun Huang may be, they are essentially an echo of an¬
other more sophisticated and more serious interest in nature. This interest we
can know only second-hand from a few Japanese incidental landscapes of the
eighth century, but principally from literary materials of the period. These
are largely works of poetry, philosophy, and art criticism and they reflect the
Taoist-influenced concern with the meaning of the Universe especially in the
manifestations of nature as a mysterious or magical power. Thus Tao-yun (ca.
400) writes:

High rises the Eastern Peak
Soaring up to the blue sky.

Among the rocks — an empty hollow
Secret, still, mysterious!

Uncarved and unhewn.

Screened by nature with a roof of clouds.

Times and Seasons, what things are you
Bringing to my life’s ceaseless change?

I will lodge forever in this hollow
Where Springs and Autumns unheeded pass.

— tr. A. Waley, More Translations from the Chinese

We find the same concern with nature as a mysterious force in the Introduction
to Landscape Painting by Tsung Ping (375-443)51 with the usual mixture of
such Taoist thought with the Confucian ideal of the sage who draws virtue
from nature. Tsung, being a painter, is “led into the Way by a sense of form.”
Still at this time landscape is realized more fully in verbal than in pictorial
terms. We can see this not only in the sharp contrast between the grand de¬
scription by Ku K’ai-chih of How to Paint the Cloud Terrace Mountain 51 and
the relatively feeble pictorial accomplishment seen in the mountain section of
his painting in the British Museum, but also in the History of Painting writ¬
ten by Chang Yen-yuan in the ninth century. He disparages the landscape paint¬
ing of previous times:

There are still some famous pictures handed down from the Wei and Chin
Dynasties, and I have had occasion to see them. The landscapes are filled
with crowded peaks, their effect is like that of filigree ornaments or horn

combs. Sometimes the water does not seem to flow, sometimes the figures
are larger than the mountains. The views are generally enclosed by trees
and stones which stand in a circle on the ground. They look like rows
of lifted arms with outspread fingers-56

This is a good description of the Tun Huang votive picture (9, il. p, 16). Final
evidence for the lack of a real landscape art in the Six Dynasties period is con¬
tributed by the famous first canon of Hsieh Ho which demands “ ch* i-yun-sheng-
tung— animation through spirit consonance” as the first and last requirement for
great painting. However, the requirement seemingly does not apply to land¬
scapes but to figures or sentient beings,01 for Chang's History specifically ex¬
cludes trees and stones from ch’i yun . We are still in a pre -landscape atmos¬
phere.

The final preparations for a true landscape art are achievements of the
T’ang Dynasty (618-907). Two other functions were added to the magical and
supporting role of landscapes, both with motivations of a more direct and
pragmatic nature in accordance with one aspect of T ang culture. First, land¬
scape became a means of aiding sophisticated decoration- We know copies of
courtly palace scenes in park-like settings, painted in green, blue, arid gold.47

7 (defai/J

Then there were large scale wall decorations now lost, but attested to by the
retardataire eleventh-century tomb murals of the foreign Liao Dynasty in Man¬
churia,39 as well as by literary evidence. The specifically symbolic use of the
Seasons or Directions was evidently continued in these wall landscapes as well
as the secondary aesthetic position for landscape painting implied by the mere
fact of its use as architectural decoration. Second, we have a topographical and
descriptive approach which owes much of its drive to the same interests that
produced maps and gazetteers. Indeed the earliest “pure” landscape painter,
revered as the traditional father of the accepted landscape tradition, Wang Wei
(698-759), would seem to have been such a descriptive painter to judge by his
most famous scroll, now known to us only through painted or engraved-on-
stone copies of a much later date (7, il. p. 18).33 The organization is additive
and consists of a series of space cells enclosing the principal points of interest,
largely architectural, on the artist-scholar-official’s estate. The ground plane is
tilted in an early map-like fashion, and each cell or point of interest is carefully
labeled. Nearly all of the painted copies indicate the original to have been in
the green and blue decorative style associated with the courtly palace paintings

after Wang Wei

Anonymous

of the period and which we also find in the Tun Huang fragments (9, ih p. 16)*
Still, tradition credits Wang with the origin of monochrome landscape painting
and other works, one a possibly original or, at worst, near-original small winter
landscape formerly in the Palace Collection,55 show a more developed landscape
style* But in the last analysis it is still closer to what had gone before than to
the full style which was soon to develop* Such an inference can be supported
quantitatively by statements of later writers such as Wang Shih-chen (1526-
1593) that “generally speaking the landscape painters before the Five Dynasties
(907-960) were few;”5*1 or by the really small number of pure landscape titles
to be found in records of collections up to the eleventh century; Even after the
florescence of landscape painting, in the early twelfth-century catalog of Em¬
peror Hui Tsung, religious subjects were placed ahead of landscape*

The beautiful Tribute Horse (10, ih p- 20) is one of our best documents
for summing up the position of landscape painting at this point in our nar¬
rative* A work of the tenth or eleventh century, it is a rather conservative state¬
ment of earlier principles with an overlay of up-to-date details. The richly col¬
ored horsemen give a sure hint as to the courtly-colored style of the painting* As
we shall see, there are elements of the Northern Sung monumental landscape
style present, especially in the treatment of the rocks and distant mountains. In
these we sense a new, endlessly expanded world after the cramped quarters of
the past* However, gold and what was once considerable color is to be found
throughout the landscape as well as a rather careful descriptive handling of
the principal tree. Meaningfully, the tree is placed in the immediate fore¬
ground as a space indicator for the frieze of figures, a typically T’ang or even
late Six Dynasties device. All of the parts of t he picture are carefully separated,
whether details or the more general sub-divisions of composition on the surface
of the silk or in the suggested recessions of space. The Tribute Horse may well
be one of our best portable keys to the more conservative side of landscape wall
painting; and yet there are so many fundamentally new elements that we must
now consider their foundation and evolution*

Anonymous

THE SUNG DYNASTY

With Buddhist Temple in the Hills after Rain, (1 1, il. p. 22), probably
an eleventh-century work close to the style of Li Ch’eng, landscape has become
the subject of the painting and, as the title implies, its raison d’etre. The qual¬
ifying phrase, “after rain,” applies to the natural prospect. The temple hap¬
pens to be there. If we examine the picture objectively, we find a centralized
composition with a relatively equal emphasis on its various parts. The fore and
middle grounds are united, but clearly separated in space from the distant
mountain masses whose bases are lightened so as to silhouette and separate
nearer details. The recessions in space are accomplished by a careful and clear
series of flat rock or mountain planes placed parallel to the picture plane.
Representationally, the forms of nature are translated into brush-terms but not
yet at the expense of the natural form. There is a tremendous effort to grasp
the reality of nature within a highly schematic and intellectual format. The
result is all-embracing and monumental, a true macrocosm.

In this post-T’ang period of the Five Dynasties and the Northern Sung
Dynasty (960-1 127), the speculative theories of nature attain an unmatched
height, reconciling the rectitude of Nature found in the interrelationships of
Heaven, Earth, and Man as expressed in Li or “principle,” with the direct and
keen observation of nature as it existed. Thus, for example, large trees must be
on solid ground and “far-away figures have no eyes.” This is the technique of
landscape painting as expressive of the principles of nature. Nor are the sea¬
sonal, directional, and geographical aspects ignored. Added to these is pure
enjoyment, both with regard to the object and to its depiction as we read in
the surviving words of the great painters Ching Hao and Kuo Hsi (13, il. p.
26).51 These various preconditions for the fulfillment of great landscape paint¬
ing were also due to “Buddhism’s gradual subsidence from its high place as
the most inspiring influence in Chinese life, a process which had begun in the
eighth and ninth centuries.”* As Focillon has shown, in other countries and
other periods, once a sequence of related forms begins to evolve, the archaic
or experimental period proceeds with great speed. Such is the case with Chi¬
nese landscape painting in the tenth and early eleventh centuries.

The Buddhist Temple in the Hills after Rain has introduced us to the
results of the experimental period as seen in the hanging scroll format. Later
hanging scrolls of the Northern Sung period may often display a greater depth

# L. C. Goodrich, A Short History of the Chinese People , New York, 1943, p. 155.

Attributed to Hsu Tao-nTng

of space and an increased feeling of mood, but with an ensuing loss of monu-
mentality. This loss is compensated for, and perhaps related to, the growth of
interest in the handscroll format. This unique and almost musical format is
more easily preserved through the vicissitudes of war and peace, and, happily,
we are able to study and show an unprecedentedly rich assembly of Northern
Sung landscape handscrolls. (12-16, il. pp. 24, 26, 28, 30, 32.)

Perhaps the earliest of these, and certainly the most monumental in scale
and symmetrically balanced in composition, is the scroll, Fishing in a Mountain
Stream (12, il. p. 24). The traditional attribution is to Hsu Tao-ning who
flourished in the early eleventh century and was known to his contemporaries
as a master of winter “moods” and in his later years for a “fresh and spontan¬
eous” manner.62 Since the handscroll format for landscape was then a rela¬
tively experimental form, we can expect and do find a compromise between the
verticality implicit in the older hanging scroll or wall format and the horizontal
movement through time appropriate to the handscroll. The free and loose

Attributed to Kuo

calligraphic brushwork attests to the remarkable speed with which the land¬
scape art had matured. The second handscroll (13, il. p. 26) is attributed to Kuo
Hsi, one of the greatest names in the history of Chinese painting, and show
an increased complexity in the presentation of a similar northern barren land¬
scape view. The organization of space here does not depend upon planar over¬
laps so much as on staggered “islands” in a sea of flat, indefinite space. There
may well have been more to the left of the painting where the near masses
of the mountains provide a balance by contrast against the preceding open
distances. The natural forms have an even stronger grotesque character than
those of Hsu Tao-ning and an even freer and wetter handling of the brush.
Kuo was estimated at the head of his generation62 and evidently justly so for
his wry and personal outlook was supported by a great command of medium,
representation, and format. He was a climactic figure and may well represent
the end of a classic and balanced moment for Chinese landscape painting follow¬
ing the monumental and almost legendary founders of the tenth and early
eleventh centuries, i.e., Ching Hao, Fan K’uan, Chu Jan, K’uan Tung, Li
Ch’eng, and Hsu Tao-ning.

A virtual summary of accomplishment previous to the twelfth century,
as well as a statement of new problems and insights, is to be found in the
anonymous Streams and Mountains without End (14, il. p. 28). It is a signifi¬
cant monument, not only for this, but also because its date in the first quarter
of the twelfth century can be established beyond a reasonable doubt by consis¬
tent colophons going back to at least 1205, at which time the painting wa
already considered old; by its unique correspondence with the only archaeo¬
logical evidence available, a fragment on silk from Khara Khoto; and by its
stylistic conformity with paintings in the Palace Collection likely to be North¬
ern Sung in date. As a summary. Streams and Mountains without End provides
us, beginning with the first mountain range, with an archaic encircling moun¬
tain-space-cell of T’ang origins, a rolling and resonant distant mountain range in
the manner of Tung Yuan, a crystalline and angular mountain range and valley
in the style of Yen Wen-kuei, and finally a powerful vertical mountain state¬
ment, twisting and writhing like the mountains of Fan K’uan. The opening and
closing flatlands are a new invention of the early twelfth century and illustrate
a tendency to realism and further, a gentler, lyrical, and more intimate ap¬
proach than heretofore. The whole effect of a small and distant scale is also
more in keeping with a realist attempt to reconcile the monumental with a
small format, the conceptual and the austere with the visual and the intimate.
All of these factors, both original and eclectic, combine with the excellent
preservation to offer a “moistly-rich” original document of the transition from
Northern to Southern Sung.

Anonymous

'«4 #

Nt f A

1 1

Chiang Ts'an

Mountains (Shensi)

16 (detail)

A second and equally well-preserved landscape of the transition is Ver¬
dant Mountains (16, il. p. 30) where a single personality is evident in the in¬
formal composition and in the staccato and delicate touch. Calligraphic and
free as this brush may be, the structural and visual relationship of the moun¬
tain range to its counterpart in nature, the mountains of Shensi (il. p. 31), is
reassuring and certifies the belief of the Chinese painter that art proceeds
from nature as well as from art.

On a smaller and even more intimate scale, the little album painting
from Boston (17, il. p. 34) is another “in-between.” It is like Northern Sung
in its relative completeness and interest in far as well as in near detail. It is
like Southern Sung in its assymmetry and arbitrary juxtaposition of the large
units. The diagonal composition with the two boats reversing the main direc¬
tion is as beautifully accomplished as the representation— a late summery day
still save for an offshore breeze. The existence of the miniature-like detail is
probably due to the “literal” style first sponsored by the Northern Sung Aca¬
demy during the reign of Emperor Hui Tsung which ended in 1127; but the
rather playful and repetitive rhythms of the brush strokes are more like the
aristocratic mannerisms of such Southern Sung court painters as Ma Ho-chih.
The measure of difference between the middle and late Sung styles can be
determined by the comparison of the Boston leaf with another similar composi-

Mi Yu-jen

tion from the Metropolitan Museum (21, il. p. 39) which is almost completely
vaporized.

Before turning to the new and different solutions of the Southern
Sung painters, we must note a personal and unusual mode of brush work which
was the contribution of Mi Fei, followed by his son Mi Yu-jen (15, il. p. 32).
While the format of Cloudy Mountains, with its firm, self-contained, and
strongly architectonic composition, is basically Northern Sung and monumen¬
tal, the brushwork is markedly different. The blunt strokes are massed, giving
a rich tone and a compact solidity to the forms of the mountains. At the
same time there are elements such as the long brush strokes of the shore at
the right which are rather arbitrary and dramatic and which anticipate the
extravagantly bold brushwork of the spontaneous style of late Sung. The low-
lying hills with their gentle contours and enfolding clouds, rather than sheets,
of mist are characteristic of the Southern coastal regions and should be con¬
trasted with the more spectacular inland mountains or the great open spaces
of the North.

The southward flight of the court after the Tartars’ capture of the
Northern capital in 1127 marked the beginning of a century and a half of
academic and individualistic painting activity which developed a second cli¬
mactic answer to the problems of landscape painting. In addition to the hang-

ing scroll and handscroll, the album painting, square or fan shaped, was an
important and significant ground for painting* The resulting implications of
m intimate and introspective result are well-founded* The typical styles of
Southern Sung, despite sporadic efforts to revive monumentality, were the
Lyric and later the Spontaneous.85 The first used sudden and arbitrary jux¬
tapositions of selected details or motifs combined with misty washes and
highly calligraphic brush work; while the second, more conservative, even ar-
chaistic in composition, expanded and specialized the intuitive and spontan-

18 Li Sung

eous command of the brush even to the extremes of the “flung-ink” style.

A small, fan-shaped painting by Li Sung, The Mountains and the Jas¬
per Sea of the Immortals (18, il. p. 35) indicates the preliminary direction and
emphases of the Lyric style of Southern Sung. The fragmented composition
is asymetrical in arrangement with a few accents of massed ink against the tex¬
ture of the water. The rough sea is bound by a perfectly controlled linear-
rhythmical movement and hence we need have no fear for the boat with its occu¬
pants, close as it is to the rocks. The album leaf is treated like the emotive

* %

Hsia Kitei

fragment of a lyric poet. A simi¬
lar approach to a different subject
can be found in another leaf. Re¬
turning Herder and Buffalo (19,
il. p. 38). In this case the roman¬
tic spirit is conveyed in part by
the low horizon and the asym¬
metry of the vertical and hori¬
zontal arrangements, but espe¬
cially by the deletion of distance
through using the silk as mist,
thus involving the spectator with
the fragmented elements of the
foreground: wind - blown trees,
rustic cottages, man, and buffalo.

One of the few large-scale clas¬
sic statements of the Lyric mode
is the extraordinary but incomplete work by Hsia Kuei (20, il. p. 36), T welve
Scenes from a Thatched Cottage, of which the last four scenes are preserved. (A

complete version, but a later copy, is at Yale University.86) It is the '‘type” solu¬
tion of the style and period for the most difficult format, the handscroll. The
essence of the achievement is dramatic contrast whether in details such as the
transitions or juxtapositions of ink tones, contrasts of sharp brush strokes with
soft, wet washes, or in larger matters such as near and far distance, complex
units such as trees, nets, boats against empty silk-space, or a low, misty shore
beside a soaring, sharp-edged mountain range. Where the Northern Sung
painters had rather a uniformly detailed vision of nature in sharp focus, the

Anonymous

Ma-Hsia school chose to see things sharply or dimly, in or out of focus, in ac¬
cordance with a less rational, more emotional and dramatic approach. Where
before the universal Li was expressed by rational examination and construc¬
tion, it was now selected intuitively here and there, found with a sudden sense
of awareness. If we compare this with the Wang Wei copy, while each scene
in each scroll is labeled, one needs only to look at the cramped topography of
the earlier scroll and the immediacy of vision in the Hsia Kuei, to realize the
long process that has intervened. The tie to the actuality of nature is still very

Liang K'ai

much present, as we can see in the photograph of the solitary pine on T’aishan
(il. p. 38), but it is precisely that lighting and that silhouette, sharply outlined
and divorced from its complete setting, that was only a part of the whole before
and is now a symbol for the whole.

This suggestive art can be seen in numerous examples in this country.
The small fan-shaped leaf of a stormy waterway (21, il. p. 39) is evidence of
the limits to which delicate suggestion can be pushed. Yet with all of its per¬
sonal poetry, if we place this with a comparable subject by the individualists
of the seventeenth century (97, il. p. 122), the unique nature of each expression
is revealed and in addition, the means of differentiation in time. The South¬
ern Sung leaf is a filtered storm “recollected in tranquility,” while the other
takes one into the teeth of the wind. The psychological sense of direct involve¬
ment in a given picture, with little or no feeling of recollection or remove, is
a sign of later individualism.

The final statement of Southern Sung landscape attitudes is made by
practitioners of the Spontaneous mode, such as Mu Ch’i or Liang K’ai (22,
il. p. 40). Unfortunately we cannot display a type example with its extremely
bold “flung-ink” techniques, as drastically simple as a sword cut or an explo¬
sion.52 The Winter Landscape of Liang K’ai is an essay on the transition from
the Lyric to the Spontaneous manner. The twisted tree stump, brushed in a
frenzy of movement, sets the space in the picture. Without it the rest is staf-
fage, however delicately painted. The technique of the tree reveals an abrupt
and arbitrary personality as well as the final direction of Sung painting. Prac¬
ticed largely by monks or others under Ch’an Buddhist discipline, this last
Sung style is a pictorial parallel to the mystic’s sudden enlightenment, as well
as to the individual’s revolt against the times of trouble that were the last years
of the Dynasty. Building on the increasingly dramatic brushwork of the Lyric
painters, the Spontaneous masters often returned to more self-contained and
even monumental compositions— the wild touch was their contribution and
the end of a cycle or period in Chinese landscape painting. The tradition was
carried on by secluded Chinese priests and, more significantly, the priest-
painters of Japan, where the extremist nature of the Spontaneous style was
more readily acceptable than in the country of Li and the golden mean.

Things are never what they seem or what we wish them to be. It
would be a serious error to imagine that all of this unfolds in a lovely sequence.
Many conservatives or eclectics confute the critics and produce remarkable
works outside the pigeonholes. Two of these can reasonably be placed in this
period of shifting values: Late Sung or Early Yuan, thirteenth or fourteenth
century. The Landscape with a Flight of Geese (23, il. p. 42) is a suggestive

aesthetic parallel to the drawing by Claude (122, il. p. 42), as well as a subtle
example of the wedding of the archaic colored decorative style with lyric frag¬
mentation. The evident effort to realize a larger, more total effect recommends
an early Yuan date. The general composition of the Chicago handscroll (24,
not il.) also seems to be an attempt at recapturing the complexity and com¬
pleteness of Northern Sung style; but the greater interest lies in the remark¬
ably individual hand, especially good in details, with a light, nervous, but confi¬
dent touch.

THE YUAN DYNASTY

The contributions of the landscape painters of the Yuan Dynasty (1279-
1368), relatively little known at first hand in the Occident, were of the highest
importance, not only in themselves, but also for the whole future development
of the art* We have seen the fulfillment and elaboration of the monumental
style followed by the baroque qualities of the Southern Sung painters. If we
merely look for succeeding and similar qualities in the painting of the Yuan
Dynasty, we will have missed the originality and real significance of that short
ninety-year period. What happened is quite simple. The creative painters set
into motion a new direction, a new cycle* Their experimentation, like that of
the tenth century, was rapid, effective, and just as influential. The traditional
deference to the past, inherent in Chinese society, influenced their pictures
as evidenced by the writings and the colophons on them* But that homage, how¬
ever sincere, should not conceal their real, and even revolutionary, originality*

All that went before existed and could not be erased. What is interest¬
ing is what was used and what was ignored. The reasons for a choice were in
part aesthetic, for the major manifestation of traditionalism was a desire once
more for completeness, for landscapes with a rational Li, for the formats of
hanging and handscroll rather than the fragmental album painting. They
were also in part political and social, for non -cooperation with this foreign
Mongol government, for a return to the strong virtues of the men of T’ang and
Northern Sung rather than the supposed weaknesses of the retreating men of
Southern Sung living on borrowed time* The highest ideal now was the sage-
scholar-painter, aloof from the “dusty” world of affairs, immersed in the more
wholesome world of nature with its inevitable principle, and expressing his
allegiance to himself and to his friends through painting. With few exceptions,
landscape painting was now omnipresent, the only proper subject matter for
the creative painter*12

Let us first look at the Yuan painters who connect with the past, and
then at the creative individuals who fixed the direction of the future, Ch’ieri
Hsuan lived only briefly into the Yuan Dynasty, refused its favors and so be¬
came the first, in point of time, of the virtuous Yuan masters. His Home
Again (25, il* p- 44) is a most consistent example of archaism in style and sub¬
ject* Based on a prose poem by the fifth-century T'ao Yuan-ming, the repre¬
sentation embodies the new ideals* The scholar-official returns from his dis¬
agreeable connections with the state to his rustic home in the country. The
blue, green, and gold style is also archaistic as are the stiff, angular strokes

h % i * q

i x.

i**L&'*

thi\t

&* $*5/i ^

1, ^ ** .

&JM

w%±k i*

• fcUit**

'* *)& 4 £*i

•in inn

ifc

Ch'ien Hsuan

Chao Meng-fu

used to delineate rocks and
mountains. Note well the
peculiar and exaggerated per¬
spective of the old earthen
wall, tilted almost as if it had
been painted in the Six
Dynasties, or even by Wang
Wei. The figures, too, where
not damaged or retouched,
seem deliberately stiff and
archaic. On the other hand
the fluent handling of the
dead branches and the care¬
fully realistic willows are very
much up-to-date and in the
accomplished manner of the
still life painter, which was Ch’ien Hsuan’s specialty.

The most famous conservative was Chao Meng-fu, accepted by later
generations despite his official cooperation with the Dynasty. The Landscape
with Twin Pine Trees (26, il. p. 44) is one of the most important remaining
examples of his landscape art and an excellent explanation of the fascination
he held for the Chinese: that is, his truly calligraphic brushwork. For us it is
a difficult picture. Derived from the Northern Sung masters, Li Ch’eng and
Kuo Hsi in tree and mountain types, it represents a cleaned-up and purified
version of the style of the earlier men. There is a greater emphasis on “run¬
ning-brush” virtuosity. In a very real sense, it is a skeleton or outline of the
past. We are forced to see only the bones of brush and landscape. The lat¬
ter is not the subject of the picture; the brush is. At the same time, there is
some wonderfully observed structure transferred into terms of wash, the rocks
being particularly notable. If we study the scroll with the drawing by Wolf
Huber (118, il. p. 46), Chao’s specialization of interest seems less strange. The
compositions as well are comparable although the Huber seems to us more
specific in locale.

Two lines of Chao’s inscription are most significant in the light of Yuan
attitudes to Southern Sung painting:

I dare not claim that my paintings are comparable to those of the ancients;

contrasted with those of recent times I dare say they are a bit different. .

The Yuan masters knew well their originality and their indebtedness.

118

Wolfgang Huber

Chao Yung

Chao Meng-Eu’s son, Chao
Yung, is more conservative
than his father, less brilliant
in handling his brush, but
rather more solid in his ap¬
proach to nature’s shapes. His
Landscape with Scholar Fish¬
ermen (27, il. p. 47) is evi¬
dently systematic in brush-
work, with its carefully placed
broad stubby strokes. While
the format and general atti¬
tude are derived from Tung
Yuan of Northern Sung, the
sharp split in terms of surface
pattern is typically Yuan, The
split is only a surface one for
the space does suggest, in
depth, the great sweep of a
body of water. The whole
effect is a pictorial, not a cal¬
ligraphic, one, and is achieved
largely by the parallelism be¬
tween the two main trees as
foreground symbols of the dis¬
tant protruding point and ris¬
ing mounLain range. This re¬
lationship, with the subtly
controlled scale, tone, and
suggested color, is the message
of the picture, a quiet and
seemingly coarse production until we find our way. This simplicity and rough¬
ness are surely deliberate archaisms designed to deceive the “crowd” in the
best scholar-painter manner.

Another and lesser, but large-scale example of Yuan conservatism is to
be found in The Guardians of the Valley ( 28 , iL p. 48), The study of ancient
trees was already in evidence in the Northern Sung period, judging from cop
ies or records associated with Li Ch’eng, Kuo Hsi, and others, and was followed
after Yuan in especially notable fashion (55, 56, il- p, 81, 82), The Guardians is

LI Shih-hsing

Wu Chen

New Summer Palace Garden {Hopei}

typically more specialized than
earlier productions. The only
complex treatment is in the larch
trees, the rest of the picture be¬
ing a simplified setting for the
main theme.

The Yuan conservatives are
qualitatively of great interest but
their original contributions are
somewhat incidental to the tradi¬
tionalism of what they conceived
to be Northern Sung style. The
most significant and creative con¬
tributions of the age were made
by the “gentlemen painters”
(wen jen), especially the highly
revered “Four Great Masters":
Huang Kung-wang, Wu Chen,
Wang Meng, and Ni Tsan. The
first is not represented in the ex¬
hibition, if indeed anywhere,57
but satisfactory works of the other
three are to be seen and their
testament must now be described

and evaluated, beginning with
the most conservative, Wu Chen.

Rocks, Reeds, Old Tree, and Bamboo (29, il. p. 49} is just barely a land¬
scape. Actually it falls equally well into that special category of Chinese paint¬
ing described by its title. But the unified atmosphere of the painting conveys
more than its limited repertory of shapes. The painter has executed a deliber¬
ately “homely” picture, especially in the rather dull (as a type) tree. But the
brush dominates. It is a conservative brush, not unlike that of Chao Yung
(27, il. p. 47), but freer, “untrammeled," less systematic, and more direct. Note,
too, that Wu varies his tones drastically, using a typical Yuan variation of in-
and-out tones in the bamboo and tree trunk (see also 32, il. p. 57). This pic¬
ture and other reasonably sure works of Wu Chen show a closely knit com¬
bination of all the Sung styles with perhaps more emphasis on the early
material. What is most significant about the artist is his insistence on “single¬
stroke” brush work— abrupt, vigorous, and decidedly masculine. His contribu-

tion was the selection and emphasis of this one point within a more conservative
framework than that of his two juniors.

The complicated textures of nature (il. p. 51) translated into the equally
complex language of the brush had occupied earlier painters only up to a point,
usually in terms of details rather than the all-over surface of the picture. The
new discovery and practice of Wang Meng was just this textural variety and
complexity. In his Fishing in the Green Depths (30, il. p. 50) we can immedi¬
ately sense a new and unusual personality. At the same time we rediscover a
unified relationship between the distance in the scene and the surface of the
picture itself. This is accomplished by the textures made by interwoven brush
strokes which function both in depth, as representation, and as strokes on the
surface of the paper. With the realization of nature’s complexity Wang also
found the means to give movement to landscape, by the undulating brush
strokes, and by rolling, even writhing profiles for his rocks, trees, and moun¬
tains. These textural and kinetic interests are accompanied by a coloristic
quality, if such a word can be used in early Chinese painting. The limited
washes of red-orange, blue, and green are used in a concentrated way. The
composition of the picture is rather formal and well-enclosed within the pic¬
ture boundaries. In this Wang is, like his contemporaries, indebted to the
Northern Sung painters. His style is, in the reliable works that have survived,
seldom delicate or refined. Like Wu Chen, he displays in this picture a rough
and ropy exterior which one must penetrate to find the substance of his art.

It would seem wise at this mid- point of our discussion of these two in¬
novators, Wang Meng, and next, Ni Tsan, to point out that all of their generally
accepted paintings are on paper. The Fishing in the Green Depths , damaged
as it is, was clearly painted on a polished paper with a hard surface capable of
taking a sharp brush stroke. We shall see that the Ni Tsan is on a more ab¬
sorbent paper allowing subtle and poetic effects of the brush. Paper became, for
the progressive artists of the Yuan period, the most desirable ground for the
brush. The reason is obvious. It is considerably more a servant to the brush
than silk and where the emphasis was now on the brush stroke, the touch of
the painter, paper was the answer.

Ni Tsan was probably the most imitated and copied artist in his period,
if not of any period. His legendary “purity" and “loftiness” made him the
scholar’s ideal; and the apparent simplicity of his painting made superficially
accurate imitation rather common. With Wang Meng, Ni influenced more later
scholarly painting than any other man. River Pavilion and Mountain Scenery
(31 , il. p. 54) is characteristic of his developed style. Where Wang Meng tended
to cover the paper with his network of lines, Ni Tsan used a great deal of

blank or lightly touched paper throughout the picture, but without opposing
dense areas to blank areas as did the Ma-Hsia school of Southern Sung. The re¬
sult is a delicate, pure, even feminine visual impression. He is very sparse in
his use of the brush and usually tends to two extremes— very wet or very dry
ink. The dry textures build up whatever mass is suggested while the
wet touches define boundaries and add liveliness to the areas concerned.
Usually there are no figures— an empty, ideal, cleansed world of nature. The
composition of this picture occurs often in his work and is quite in keeping
with his period, but with Ni the minor variations are all important.

These minor variations are not merely technical but are primarily vari¬
ations in mood. Often the key to the mood is the artist’s inscription. Almost
none of his paintings, or indeed those by most of the Yuan individualists, is
lacking in a reasonably long inscription by the artist which tells or hints at the
mood, raison d’etre and/or circumstances of its creation. These painters are
not called literary without reason. They took for granted and used their mani¬
fold literary, calligraphic, and pictorial accomplishments almost interchange¬
ably. Further, the mood which the picture aroused in notable individuals,
priestly or secular, was important and hence their inscriptions added to those
of the artist (31, 34, 36, il. p. 54, 58, 60). The delicate, almost prim character of
Ni Tsan’s calligraphy is as much a part of the painting as is the meaning of his
inscription.

It is the second month and the sound of rain follows from the first;

The boat-oars of Three Rivers turn toward Suchou.

The sadness of the spring does not awake and is as deep in wine;

Waves show forth the madness of the wind which shakes my window.

— tr. by R. Edwards

The most interesting characterization of the art of Ni Tsan is given by
another great individualist of a later date, Shih-t’ao (94-97):

The paintings by Master Ni are like waves on the sandy beach, or streams
between the stones which roll and flow and issue by their own force. Their
air of supreme refinement and purity is so cold that it overawes men.

Painters of later times have imitated only the dry and desolate or the
thinnest parts, and consequently their copies have no far-reaching spirit.58

Since the style of Ni Tsan is so important in later painting, we have placed
together with the River Pavilion, two works in the manner of Ni Tsan by early
Ming painters of the first rank, Liu Chueh (40, il- p- 55) and Shen Chou (52,
il. p. 55). In so doing, we hope that the idea of “copying” is dispelled. Within
the set limits one can visually differentiate the individual variations on the
given theme: first, the suggestive and cloaked style of Ni Tsan; second, the
more brittle and dramatic composition by Liu Chueh; and third, the rougher,

31 Ni Tsan

Ts’ao Chih-po

bolder, playful, and at the same time more solid style of Shen Chou. The re¬
lationship is not so much that of a musical composition played by two virtuosi
as it is a variation on an earlier composer’s theme by two creative composers
of a later day.18 One thinks of Brahms’ Variations on a Theme of Haydn, or
the less acknowledged “borrowing” by almost any creative musician.

Ni Tsan and Wang Meng were not alone. Others explored similar
ground and priority of discovery is not too clear from Chinese histories, though
precedence is always assumed to be with these two. Thus Ts’ao Chih-po has
much in common with Ni Tsan. While Ts’ao died well before Ni, he is always
described as influenced by the latter, when the opposite might well be indi¬
cated. Both artists share an interest in wet and dry textures, spare composi¬
tion, and a lack of interest in figures. While looking at A Pavilion near Old Pines
(32, il. p. 56), one should always remember it is an album page and meant
to be seen at close range. Then the tremendous changes in scale, the in-and-
out treatment of the upper pine branches, the lovely, free brushwork of the
left hand tree and the rich “soot- varnish” ink, are at their most effective. Like
the Chao Meng-fu (26, il. p. 44) and the Li Shih-hsing (28, il. p. 48), this old
tree type of composition goes back to such Northern Sung masters as Li
Ch’eng.

But more often we find late Yuan pictures by masters essaying the com¬
plex textural problems that fascinated Wang Meng. The first of these pictures,
Saying Farewell to a Guest at Ch’ing Ch’uan (33, il. p. 58), is by Chao Yuan,
one of those worthies who gained posthumous fame by their death at the
hands of the powerful Hung Wu, first emperor of the Ming Dynasty. The
scroll has an obvious textural relationship to Wang Meng, except that Chao
uses smaller strokes, even points of ink. The two most evident dissimilarities,
and very original, too, are: the forcing of ink tone at the edges of large forms
so that a rather dramatic contrast appears, with resulting clear separations in¬
stead of the unified surface characteristic of Wang Meng; and the deliberately
ghostly quality of the figures, impalpable before the powerful background. The
splendid preservation of the picture is extraordinary and permits us to savor
the ink tones and touch to a higher degree than is usual in originals of the
period. We can find here the careful “glazes” of ink that contribute to the rich¬
ness of the whole.

Another fourteenth-century textural style is to be found in the little
handscroll by the almost unknown Yao T’ing-mei (34, il. p. 59). It presents a
consistent and somewhat unusual manner of building up tones by scumbles of
ink finished with dark, wet accents, but always following an irregular, twisting
line whether in rocks, trees, or mountains. The composition is equally original

Chao Yuan 36

Hsu Pen

with its irregularly shaped space holes through which we move away from
near areas of heavy texture. The result of these devices is a surface feeling of
quiet gravity with a certain turbulence beneath. Two other details attest a
master deserving of some fame; the “fade-out” of the landscape into the in¬
scription and the delicate, precise brush strokes in the foreground grasses.

The last Yuan painting to be discussed (36, il. p. 58) is by Hsu Pen,
another of those unfortunates whose death was arranged by the Hung Wu em¬
peror. The painting provides a fitting end to our view of this all important
period for it is both a creative and an eclectic picture and so gives us that
neat and tidy summary so much to be desired. The artist owes much to the
way of Ni Tsan for his delicate tree forms and dry textures, and to Wang
Meng for his complex and rolling vision of nature. This marriage of two seem¬
ing incompatibles is an accomplishment in itself but when a truly monumental
composition within a small format is added the result is completely satisfac¬
tory. One should note as well the additional element of the fantastic, for the
twisting metamorphic shapes are quite unusual. They may be found occasion¬
ally in Wang Meng, only once in Ni Tsan, and that because of a specific sub¬
ject, the Lion Grove near Suchou,19 where there were carefully selected rocks
that looked like animals. Much later, Wu Li (91, il. p. 113) was to dwell in this
realm of the grotesque. Hsu’s landscape is well provided with literary inscrip¬
tions and that, too, is typically Yuan. His Streams and Mountains is a true
accomplishment in a single work as complete and final as the total accomplish¬
ment of the Yuan painters on a larger scale. Another period of ever quicken¬
ing experimentation in the continuing life of Chinese landscape painting was
drawing to a close.

THE MING DYNASTY

Curiously enough, the return of a native Chinese dynasty to power in
1368 did not cause a mass return to the Academy or the Court on the part of
the literary painters. Perhaps the fatal experiences of Hsu Pen, Chao Yuan,
and others with the first Ming Emperor helped to maintain the disinclination
for official posts. But fundamentally the garment of remote and solitary isola¬
tion “above the crowd” fitted the progressive painters so well that the idea of
a return to the restrictions of Imperial or official patronage was never seriously
entertained. Like late nineteenth-century “Bohemia,” the scholar's retreat,
literal or figurative, had become the accepted climate for artistic creation. This
climate was radically different from the recreated official Academy and its

38 (detail) Chin Wen-chin

adoption of a very conservative pre-scholarly style of painting best exemplified
by such masters as Pien Ching-chao, whose small and competent album painting
(37) could be taken as Southern Sung or at least conservative Yuan were it
not for his signature.

The real history of landscape painting in the Ming Dynasty is to be
found outside the painters of the official Academy and this history can be or¬
ganized without undue distortion into: (1) a short period of about fifty years
continuation of the Yuan literary style, (2) a simultaneous flourishing of a
more conservative non-literary style, (3) a brief classical moment of controlled
emotion and rationality in the art of Shen Chou, (4) the elaboration of the
literary tradition, and finally (5) the new impetus provided by the experi¬
ments of Tung Ch’i-ch’ang and the later individualists of the seventeenth cen¬
tury.

The Dynasty begins as a brief continuation of Yuan Dynasty styles and
interests in the works of such men as Wang Fu and Yao Shou. Two bamboo-
landscape handscrolls, one by a pupil of Wang Fu, illustrate this continuity
and the beginnings of change. Bamboo painting, beyond our scope here, was
a particular favorite of the scholar-painter, for it was a specialized form, a final
test of brushwork. But these paintings combine that specialized interest with a
true landscape vision. The scroll by Chin Wen-chin (38, il. p. 61) does not de¬
rive from the near view implicit in bamboo painting, but from a relatively dis¬
tant, objective, and contained viewpoint like that of the Yuan artists and before
them the masters of Northern Sung. However, the delicate and poetic quality
of Ten Thousand Bamboos speaks with the voice of the fourteenth and early
fifteenth century.

39 fdefaiH Hsia Ch’ang

39 (detail)

The second bamboo landscape, Serene Banks of the Hsiang River (39,
il. p. 62), is markedly different. The composition is daring and very much not
Yuan in effect. If a precedent must be cited it is to be found in the truncated
and arbitrary compositions of Southern Sung. But Hsia Ch’ang goes beyond
those earlier concepts. The origin of his dramatic composition is in the eye.
There is a visual unity in the picture as if one saw a narrow, panoramic strip
of landscape through a slitted aperture. Further, the wet, glazed washes of the
rocks and distant shore act as a slightly blurred, out-of-focus foil to the sharply
rendered grasses, bamboo, tree, and rocks in the foreground areas. The view¬
point, too, is striking, “a frog’s-eye view” of the river bank. The fully realized
daring of this scroll marks Hsia Ch’ang as one of the first Ming masters of an
original stamp.

The conservative side of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries is
presented by the Che (from the old name of the Chekiang region) School and
its associates. It is usually maligned by the scholar-painters of the more pro¬
gressive school deriving from the greatest fifteenth-century master, Shen
Chou. But the relegation of the Che School to a subordinate position in an

41 (detail)

evolutionary sense need not obscure its very solid and aesthetically interesting
achievement based largely on the Ma Yuan-Hsia Kuei style of Southern Sung.
The most representative Che painter is Tai Chin and his long scroll, Ten
Thousand Li of the Yangtze (41, il. p. 64), shows his style at its most conserva¬
tive. The dominant influence is that of the most famous Southern Sung painter
of that subject: Hsia Kuei. The crystalline rocks and the sharp, acutely angled
manner of the brush are his as are the contrasting juxtapositions of landscape
detail. Still, with all of its traditionalism, if we examine the scroll carefully, many
parts are not unlike the work of Shen Chou (53, il- p. 78), and we are not
far wrong if we say that the prince of literary painters owed much to such
men as Tai Chin.

The hanging scroll (42, il. p. 66) by Tu Chin is equally under the in¬
fluence of Southern Sung, but with an easy technique and composition that
should place Tu with Tai Chin as one of the greatest men of the conservative

Tat Chin

group. The tree, violating the picture boundary, and the gaze of the sage be¬
yond that frame, are typically derived from Southern Sung, but the rapid
brushwork, with warm and cool tinted inks, is the virtuoso trademark of the
Che painter. Perhaps the most extreme example of such virtuosity is seen in
the Snowscape by Shih Chung (43, il. p- 67) where the wild abandon of the
artist is expressed not only in the brushwork but also in his self-apellation, “The
Fool.”72 Many such works were executed while the artist was under the in¬
fluence of wine, a not uncommon state for Shih Chung. Inspiration is inspira¬
tion, however obtained, and the line between the fool and the wise man or the
drunk and the inspired may often be thin indeed. We recall the almost ritual
drinking of the Seven Poets of the Bamboo Grove in the T’ang Dynasty.

This extremely bold and abbreviated style, rough in Shih Chung, tran¬
quil and reserved in the scroll by Kuo Hsu (44, il. p. 68), is easily compara¬
ble to that of some Western masters such as Rembrandt (120, il. p. 68). The

single stroke and the skillful
use of wash and blank paper
is common to both, with the
reed pen of the Dutch master
providing the variety of line
widths which the Chinese ac¬
complished with the brush.

In contrast to this facet of
the conservative tradition we
find numerous works in an
almost miniature technique, richly detailed and with a close fidelity to the
traditional conventions of natural representation. The two most famous names
in this connection are Chou Ch’en and his pupil Ch’iu Ying. The little album
painting (45, il. p. 69) attributed to the former, but for the tiny figures of com¬
mon people, could well be by either. Where the Che School went to the
Ma-Hsia group for their Southern Sung inspiration, Chou Ch’en and some¬
times Ch’iu Ying were influenced by such early Southern Sung painters as Li
T’ang or others (17, il. p. 54), who tried to maintain something of the earlier
monumentality. Pines and Towering Mountains shows this conservative manner
well but the angular, linear touch, the rhythmically repeated trees with their
feathery foliage and the minuscule detail are all characteristic of the second
Ming conservative style. This detailed style was also used by Ch’iu Ying for
archaistic, richly colored pictures in the T’ang decorative mode.10

The second follower of Chou Ch’en was T’ang Yin, and with this master
we come to the most important link between the conservatives and the literary
school.05 He can be placed in either, stylistically or socially, but the finest pic¬
tures available in the West illustrate his more conservative style. The two

' A ■

-iris- v'-

120

Rembrandt

*******

hanging scrolls can be con¬
sidered together although the
composition of Strange Peaks
(46, il. p* 70), is a massive
central mountain composi¬
tion where space is de -empha¬
sized and forms are more
rounded and placid, while
Scholar in a Summer Land *
scape (47, il* p. 70) is an off-
center Li T’ang type with di¬
agonal thrusts and recessions
and more angular, tenser
shapes. The touch and meth¬
ods in both scrolls are the
same. The oyster-like incrus¬
tations that form rocks and
mountains are built up by
parallel but irregularly di¬
rected strokes of heavy ink.

It is a manner as massive in
detail as the pictures are as a whole. This massive quality is enhanced by a
particular handling of the lighter materials, especially foliage and mist. The
leaves are loosely and irregularly handled, while the bands of mist are arranged
in thin planes at almost right angles to the picture plane. These feathery
motifs and thin, flat sheets serve to emphasize the mass and weight of the major
landscape elements. One should note also the narrow, jumping ribbons of

Kuo Hsu

47 (detail)

water and the angular grasping exposed tree roots. T’ang Yin’s skill as a figure
painter is suggested by the scholar with staff in the second picture.

A curious handscroll (48, il. p- 72) is closely related to these larger pic¬
tures although the smaller format allows a slightly tighter organization and
technique. The major technical difference lies in the use of a pale ink wash
over all the paper in any landscape area. The satin ground of the hanging
scrolls hardly permits such a method and the result on the paper ground is
strangely Western. The whole impact of this handscroll is expressive of the at¬
tached colophon, signed T’ang Yin, which recalls a Han legend of immortality
and resurrection from the dead. The ethereal figure, pale and ghostly, sits
amidst a real but strange environment, barren and eroded, a lunar landscape in
monochrome. Although there is also a free and delicate style associated with
his name, making him acceptable to the scholar critics, T’ang Yin stands
slightly apart from both camps. He is almost the last voice of the monumental
style and by no means the smallest.

THE WU SCHOOL

The Wu School, named after a part of the southern garden city of
Suchou, is the great scholar-painter school of the Ming Dynasty and from a de¬
velopmental viewpoint represents the main limb of landscape painting in this
period. From it and its later off-shoot, the Sung-chiang School, stem almost
all of the later creative developments in Chinese painting. The school begins
with Shen Chou. He is its classic expression and his followers are the elabora-
tors and refiners of his contributions. Shen’s art is well-represented here and we
can begin by an examination of a key work in establishing his artistic per¬
sonality, the album in the Boston museum (49, il. p. 74).T3

The use of a landscape as a sequence, like a handscroll but retaining
the artist’s control of the “frames” of the “moving picture,” while it may have
begun earlier, would seem to have been fully exploited first in the fifteenth
century and especially by Shen Chou. The sequential album satisfied the more
consciously aesthetic and specialized demands of the scholarly style and could
now compete on equal terms with the scroll forms. Further, the album is after
all a book and hence a more accustomed format for scholar-artists steeped in a
literary tradition. The Boston album of eight double leaves is a perfect union
of poetry, calligraphy, and painting, and so conforms to the highest ideals of
the Wu School, While the pictures may be in different “manners,” they are all
unified in touch with an emphasis on the single stroke, broad, strong, and in¬
cisive, a style that confirms Shen’s traditional dependence on the Yuan painter,
Wu Chen. So that even when he paints in homage to Ni Tsan (leaf No. 4, or
52, il. P. 55), his brusque and positive manner constructs a more solid, if less
poetic world than that of “old Ni." Shen Chou can be complex or simple, his
unity is given by the brush. The colophon written in 1604 by Wang Chih-
t’eng on the Boston album praises the artist with the traditional but well-
justified cliche: “absorbed in play, unfettered by rules.”

This is not to say that his paintings are unresponsive to careful exami¬
nation, and indeed it is only then that we begin to realize the rationality and
clarity of his art. The short handscroll, Traveling in Wu (50, il. p. 75), may at
first seem just a rough and hasty improvisation. The sureness in placement of
objects in space is particularly important, as well as the extremely subtle modu¬
lations of tone. The mood is melancholic, even elegiac, and the shading of that
mood with a great variety of grays is especially noticeable. The vertical dots
and strokes are most skillfully varied in size, weight, and relationship to each
other, They are never mechanical or monotonous. The movement of the scroll
from right to left— from the poem and the lacy transparency of the trees to

Shen Chou (A)

Sheri Chou (B)

Shen Chou

125

Vincent van Gogh

51 Shen Chou

the solid encompassing rocks and hummocks— is particularly well-handled. The
path is effective, appearing on stage at right, continuing parallel to the picture
plane, and finally turning back into the distance and disappearing as unobtru¬
sively as it appeared. It serves as a representational parallel to the kinetic act
of unrolling and rerolling the scroll. Such is the “play” of Shen Chou.

In this last example and in the four-leaf album (51, il. p. 76), we are
aware of certain staccato effects of the brush, dots and slashes, sudden and
abrupt, which remind us strongly of one of the great pen-draftsmen of the mod¬
ern Western movement, van Gogh (125, il. p. 76). Like Rembrandt in the
drawing shown on page 68, Vincent uses the reed pen to achieve effects similar
to those of the brush of Shen Chou, save that Shen and Van Gogh are inter¬
ested in complexity rather than simplification.

The fragmental album mounted as a handscroll (53, il. p. 78) shows
the highest achievements of the artist in his fully developed style. Again we
have a sequential album, but with a stylistic conception different from the one
in Boston. The more mature work is built on variations within the artist's
personal style rather than, as in the latter, with personal variations on the styles
of others. The sequential organization is clear. For example, leaf 53 (A) has
no horizon and a kind of open, receding alley composition with a fence used
as a space divider. Leaf 53 (B) is in total contrast: a spacious composition with
a mass in the center, audacious and dramatic. The individual strokes of the
brush are comparable but their arrangement in (A) is tighter, and with less
contrast than those in (B). Another leaf picks up the suppressed diagonals of
(A) and (B) and combines the sharp, diagonal split of the composition with
the strongest statement of color in the whole series. Similar relationships are to
be found in the remaining two leaves by Shen Chou. The second leaf (B), with
its cliff towering above the clouds, is about as complete a visual and literary sym¬
bol as possible of Shen Chou’s original style and contribution. The poem reads:

White clouds like a belt encircle the mountain’s waist.

A stone ledge flying in space and the far, thin road.

I lean on my bramble staff and gazing into space

Make the note of my flute an answer to the sounding torrent.

— tr. R. Edwards

His is the remote but personal world of the scholar-sage-hermit towering above
the crowd. He can support this remoteness by the strength of his brush and the
clear intellect shown in his compositions. Where the contemporary and con¬
servative T’ang Yin built mass and structure by accumulation, Shen built mass
and structure in the brush stroke itself, and in this lies the secret of his stature
in the history of Chinese painting.

l*4** *

-7# 4*. i m *

* t 4M-

* -ft A -

4 3 # 4*

■ *4*/fc

Sheri Chou (A)

53 Shen Chou (B)

53a

Wen Cheng-ming

The sixth panel (53a, il. p. 79) in the Kansas City album is by Wen
Cheng-ming, the only one remaining of four by him originally contained in the
album. The relationship of this picture to those by Shen Chou in the album
verifies the record that Wen was his foremost follower and the second great
light of the Wu School. Wen’s album leaf was presumably painted in 1516, early
in his career when the influence of his master was paramount. The vocabulary
of the rocks and trees is that of the older man, but handled in a more restrained
and delicate manner and tied to a greater interest in dramatic subject matter-
in this case a rainstorm. If we compare, for example, the house and fence with
similar renderings by Shen Chou, we can see the difference of temperaments
most clearly. Wen Cheng-ming is the perfect scholar-painter, elegant and re¬
fined. Shen is less conventional; the hermit dominates the scholar.

Wen worked in a variety of styles, but his most original contribution, a
combination of drama, taste, and carefully controlled dry brushwork, is well-
represented in the exhibition. The small painting, dated 1531 (54, il. p. 80),
is one of the earliest manifestations of this style. In this case it is overlaid
with a tribute to the T’ang decorative style in its use of blue and green color

as well as in its rather careful finish.
The dominance of the rocks is note¬
worthy and reflects the already estab¬
lished interest in these grotesque and
gnarled shapes which was characteristic
of the art of gardening, especially strong
in Suchou and Hangchou (il. p. 80).

This susceptibility to the grotesque
reaches its height in a picture (55, il. p.
82) painted in the following year (1532)
where the drama of the subject and com¬
position are fully exploited. Again the
interest is paralleled in nature and gar¬
den art, the twisted junipers being much
prized in gardens or in a more natural
setting (il. p. 81). Wen Cheng-ming’s
Seven Junipers is not only an ideal rec¬
ord of a specific place, but a literary and
cosmic symbol of the greatest interest.
The artist’s colophon is the best explana¬
tion of the scroll:

Behold, memorials of by-gone days, the Seven Junipers of Ch’in-ch’uan,
celestial as the Constellation of the Seven Stars. Power divine had planted
them back in the time of Liang. Never dared Sui-jen’s flaming fire seize
them, never. Forms superb, flawless idols, spirits infinite, their shadows
guard the ancient halls, cover the jade seats. They hallow the Palace of
the Stars, attendants subservient to Heaven’s majesty. Up float their sleeves,
their hair hangs deep in tufts, chaste, taut forces of mystery. Poems unheard
are deepest. Ten thousand oxen will not pull the spreading roots grappled
in a soil of pristine power. They wedded the weird in thunder and darkest
Yin. Mosses dry at their bone knots. Now trail their boughs . . . now soar
they up . . . swinging in curls or drooping abruptly. Martial-like spears
now, now oppressed as a platter. Now they writhe like ape arms grasping
at the shifting peak, haughty cranes now, bending their necks, combing
their feathers. Wrinkles crack as axes strike. Where the russet bark bursts,
pierces through tiny leafage. Crawl their broom-like tails in desolate night,
in day time roaring waves in the trunk’s gaping hollows. Writhing, twisted
ropes dance they to the wail of the wind, as the chill spreads. Horns split,
blunted claws, wrestling of dragon and tiger, whales rolling in the main.

The giant birds snatch unexpectedly. Like ghosts, now vanishing, now
re-appearing, in boundless intricacy. To further their perfection, sky be¬
stows his auspices, dropping sweet dew into the well of elixir. Fairies, gods,
pay them visits, tuning songs in stringed encores. Color of dawn their
morning meal, heavenly nectar their wine.

The world’s hasty uproar they disdain, be it danger or peace, be the bronze

camels hidden by weeks, while Sun and Moon ever hasten, (spheres) of

the firmament . . .

In the year 1532 Summer, Cheng-ming painted and wrote this for Shih-men.

— tr. by Gustav Ecke

Eighteen years later, at the age of eighty-one, the artist painted a similar
motif in a much less grandiose manner in the Cypress and Old Rocks (56, il. p.
84). In many ways it is his masterpiece in this country and one of his most
perfect works. There is no striving for effect. The brushwork is more flexible
and varied with a brilliant use of contrasting dry and wet textures. All of his
sense of antiquity, of restraint, and of the full use of the scholar’s brush is com¬
bined in a small format. Again, as in the Yuan painting by Chao Meng-fu (26,
il. p. 44), the twig ends, executed with a swift “running brush” are a pleasure
to us, if not to the extremely high degree experienced by the Chinese critic.
These qualities, plus the moral and literary virtues attributed to the artist as
scholar and critic, have placed him on a level with his immediate predecessor,
Shen Chou.

Wen Cheng-mmg

Wen's followers in the Wu School include members of his family. Per¬
haps the most notable of these was his nephew with the alliterative name,
Wen Po-jen. His contribution is derived in part from his uncle, especially in
the often complex use of dry textures. But there is something a little larger in
scale to be found in Wen Po-jen. Perhaps his interest in atmosphere and his
often spacious compositions owe much to Sung and Yuan predecessors. Thus
the Landscape (57, il. p. 85) is in the spirit of Wen Cheng-ming, but the upper
mountains are more massive and fully realized than anything similar in that
artist. The poignant contrast between the luxurious textures of the trees below
and the spare, austere distant mountains is especially well-realized. The same re¬
straint and subtlety is communicated by the little handscroll of The Lute Song
(58, il. p. 84) where the layout reminds us a little of Southern Sung. Again we
can see the continued close relationship of the painter to nature in a photo¬
graph of a Min River scene in Fukien (ih p. 84). The Lute Song possesses that
intimacy and personal touch found in the fans painted as personal gifts by the
scholar-painters.16 (See the examples by Lu Chih and Yun Hsiang, 62, 81, not il.)

5S Wert Po-ien

Min River (Fukien)

■H

The dry-brushed textural style of Wen Cheng-ming was often used by
one of his pupils, Chu Chieh, and his Watching the Stream (59, il. p. 86)30 shows
the extent of his specialization. Like some drawings by Paul Klee, the narrow
hanging scroll must be read from bottom to top and from side to side, observ¬
ing each sign on the way. Something of the same detailed texture of nature was
the stock in trade of Pieter Brueghel in his drawings (1 19, il. p. 86), even to his
mannerist pen-stroke symbols for foliage. The word mannerist is no accident
here, for Wen Cheng-ming and his followers were just that, in the best sense
of the word, testing, examining, refining, and elaborating the Yuan and Wu
contributions.

One of the most interesting painters in this group, Lu Chih, is usually
listed as a painter of flowers. But in a few of his landscapes he uses a most
individual, crystalline-like brush stroke to construct pictures of striking clarity
and refinement. While he is rarely original in composition, the handscroll,
dated 1549 (60, il. p. 88), is just that, with a particularly rich use of color with¬
in a horizon-less landscape and with no area left without texture. The sudden
views through this texture to rice paddies, caves, houses, are also unusual. The
typical brushwork can be studied most easily in the Chicago hanging scroll
(61, il. p. 85). The composition and the brushwork are both influenced by
Ni Tsan but Lu makes his strokes smaller than those of the Yuan master. The
strokes are extremely angular with many little sharp, vertical accents. These,
plus the color, usually on the cool side in the blue-green range, with some
touches of orange, give to his work a certain prim tartness. Only in the total
composition is he ill at ease, especially in handling the conventional Ni Tsan
type of break in the middle distance.

65 (defa/JJ Ch’en Shun

60 fdefaiW

One other painter of this group, Ch’en Shun, was also known primarily
as a bird and flower painter, but where Lu Chih followed the dry and brittle
style, Ch’en seems to have specialized in the opposite direction. His strength was
the “boneless” manner, emphasizing the broad use of washes, usually colored,
and without much reinforcement from brush strokes. Not that his hand was
incapable of sharp brush work. The River Landscape , (65, il. p. 87), “painted

Lu Chih

in play for an elder brother,” is eloquent proof of his ability to use the brush
stroke as a bold means of building an original and striking handscroll. The
distant washes with their sensuous softness are more typical of his style. This
quality comes through even in monochrome in the Pavilion of Eight Poems
(63, il. p. 90) with its dreamy but deliberate blurring of shapes which recalls
some of the dissolved landscapes of Southern Sung. Ch’en Shuns finest land-

Pines on Hengshan (Hunan)

Ch'en Shun

scape style combines the boneless method, color, and the massed brushwork of
the Sung “Mi style” (15, iL p. 32). The Landscape and Poem (64, iL p. 91) is
a beautiful example of this style. The composition, gracefully bending down,
then up, is surprisingly real. The color is soft and rich, enjoyed in itself. In
this sense, the scroll is a proto type for seventeenth-century coloristie develop¬
ments. (93, 95). Ch'en Shun's paintings seem as free and easy as his calli¬
graphy, usually written in the “running style/'

The direct influence of Shen Chou, the original founder of the Wu
School, is less evident than that of Wen Cheng-ming, but it did inspire two
men: one his direct pupil, Chou Yung, a successful official; the other, Hsieh
Shih-ch'en, Chou's works are extremely rare and Whiter Mountains and Lonely

67 (defer//) Hsieh Shrh-ch'en

Chou Yung

Temple (66, il. p. 92) may well be his only work in the Occident. In figures,
architecture, and trees it recalls Shen Chou, but the heavy use of washes in
the “axe-hewn” mountains is derived from Southern Sung, Li T’ang in par¬
ticular, as stated on the title colophon. The result is bold and original, some¬
where between the Wu and Che Schools. Hsieh Shih-ch’en also falls between the
two camps and for this he was criticized by the scholar-critics. But Tiger Hill,
Suchou (67, il. p. 92) is in a more purely scholarly vein. It has his distinctive
soft, slightly blurred touch and is obviously based on Shen Chou’s style, par¬
ticularly in trees and architecture.

TUNG CH’I-CH’ANG AND SOME INDIVIDUALISTS

The end of the sixteenth century closes this period of elaboration in the
accomplishments of the Wu School. A new impetus was needed and it was
forthcoming in the theories and paintings of Tung Ch’i-ch’ang who dramati¬
cally changed the course of Chinese landscape painting. His importance and the
extent of his influence is comparable to that of Caravaggio for European paint¬
ing, who, coincidentally, was active at almost the same time: about 1600.

There is little doubt that we must speak of later Chinese painting as
“before Tung Ch’i-ch’ang” and “after Tung Ch’i-ch’ang.” His literary, critical,
and calligraphic influence is paramount, and so is his painting, like it or not.
In his writing he asserts the supremacy of the Northern Sung and Yuan
masters, and in his painting he attempts to recapture the monumental strength

of the former and the controlled calligraphy of the latter. No one could de¬
scribe the Wu School as having been monumental or universal in an objective
way. In opposing the previous direction of the literary school, Tung Ch’i-
ch’ang was both a supreme reactionary and a supreme revolutionist. While
the result is a loss of the outward reality of nature, there is a really significant
aesthetic gain in an arbitrary, even fierce, reorganization of the elements of
landscape painting into a monumental format. This aesthetic specialization in¬
volves striking distortions in his most typical pictures (69, il. p. 94). Ground
or water planes are slanted, or raised and lowered at will. Foliage areas are
forced into unified planes regardless of depth, and often in striking juxtapo¬
sitions of texture. No small details or minuscule textures are allowed to stand in
the way of the artist’s striving for a broad and universal expression of the tradi¬
tional attitudes to nature. Malraux’s subtle distinction between Chardin and
Braque, “In Chardin the glow is on the peach; in Braque the glow is on the
picture,” applies as well to the works of Tung. The result is difficult and not
completely realized when we compare his works with such later giants as Chu
Ta (98, il. p. 124), or even the more academic Wang Yuan-ch’i (86, il. p. 106),
for theirs was a pictorial genius which accomplished what Tung Ch’i-ch’ang in¬
dicated.12 And others of the later individualists, Rung Hsien (101, il. p. 126) for
example, took details or specific elements out of Tung’s pictures and enlarged
or elaborated them.

We must not assume, as the writer once did, that the appearance of
Tung Ch’i-ch’ang’s pictures results from a lack of competence. An earlier
picture “after Chang Seng-yu” (68, il. p. 94), the almost legendary pre-T’ang
painter, clearly demonstrates Tung’s control and subtlety within a chosen set
of rules: in this case color and a relatively “boneless” manner. This compe¬
tence could be commanded if desired, but, like the Post-Impressionists, the
artist was desperately striving to reconstitute the powerful and virile forms
rather than the surface likeness of the earlier painters. Tung Ch’i-ch’ang had
the last word: “Those who study the old masters and do not introduce some
changes are as if closed in by a fence. If one imitates the models too closely,
one is often still further removed from them.”56

Tung’s official position and his pictorial and critical acceptance as the
arbiter of taste and authenticity certified the triumph of the literary-painters’
tradition, identified by him and his colleagues with the “Southern School,” in
opposition to that tradition represented by the Che School and described as
“Northern.” His own immediate following, Ch’en Chi-ju (70, not il.), Mo Shih-
lung, who coined the sometimes obfuscating Northern and Southern categor¬
ies,7 and others, is usually described as the Sung-chiang School, after the town

Li Liu-fang

near Suchou which was their center.

The influence of Tung can be seen in numerous other important masters
who can only be described as seventeenth-century individualists, a description
that can be narrowed to these late Ming men alone, or broadened to include
all of the distinctive personalities of the troubled late years of the century, even
into the early part of the Ch’ing Dynasty (1644-1912). However, since this latter
group is involved in the social and political picture of the new and alien
dynasty, these later individualists will be considered subsequently, as a contrast
to the almost neo-classic academicism that was the early Ch’ing by-product of
the Sung-chiang School. The other Ming individualists are too numerous and
relatively recently known to Westerners to be presented in more than a sum¬
mary way, Although the poem on one of Li Liu-fang’s boldest pictures (71, il.
p. 96) mentions Ni Tsan, and the brush work is influenced by the brusque style
of Wu Chen, the over -all effect of the landscape would be unthinkable with¬
out the intervention of Tung Ch’i-ch'ang. We should note in passing, as a post-
Yuan characteristic, the way in which the so-called Ni type composition is vis¬
ually and compositionally unified from bottom to top. The excellent preserva¬
tion of the ink and the particularly simplified brushwork combine to offer de¬
tails (il. p. 96) which reveal the order of the successive strokes and washes with
an almost kinetic force. Or consider the fantastic boldness of Sheng Mao-yeh’s
Lonely Retreat, dated 1630, (72, il. p. 97). Sheng17 has taken a small segment
of a monumental landscape, a mountain notch, and magnified it, treated it
with great bravura, producing a large scale painting with an immediate
rather than a cumulative effect. Nevertheless, the fading mists are suggestively
handled and show the subtle touch that is found in many of the artist’s smaller
pictures. The painter is not without humor in the figure of the Sage and in
the grotesque trees. The painting fascinates precisely because of its wild, off¬
beat quality.

Another of these individualists was a direct pupil of Tung Ch’i-ch’ang.
We can see the art of Ch’eng Cheng-kuei in an early (73, il. p. 99) and a late
(74, not il.) handscroll. The former is particularly interesting as it confirms
Ch’eng’s use of "a dry and stumpy brush” as mentioned in the Kuo Ch’ao Hua
Cheng Lu. The effect in the early scroll is almost like that of Western chiaro¬
scuro. The unusual dry-textured and shaded areas are accomplished by the use
of a sooty ink, sparely watered and applied with a relatively stiff brush. The
composition is equally strange and willful, and is based on near masses and sud¬
den break-throughs, with a jerky, erratic rhythm that is typical of the artist.
In later years, as in the second scroll, he exploits this mode even further, but
with a wet brush and a rapid, unshaded handling, using slight and rather tur-

73 (detail) Ch’eng Cheng-koei

75 (detail)

Lan Ying

gid color. This extreme specialization is carried over into the titles and inscrip¬
tions on his pictures, for he uses the same title for nearly all his scrolls and even
goes so far as to number them for each year!

In contrast to this specialization are the wide-ranging interests of
Lan Ying, an effervescent and skillful, if secondary, talent. He delights in play¬
ing the improvisation game and his long scroll in the style of Tung Yuan, Huang
Kung-wang, Wang Meng, and Wu Chen (75, il. p. 100) is a type example of vari¬
ations on given themes. The last passage, inspired by Wu Chen, is especially good
—wet and free— and seems to best express the temperament of the late Ming
man. The same exuberance is found in the hanging scroll (76, il. p. 97), dated
1652, twenty-eight years later, where the spiky and saucy flavor is increased by
the decorative use of clear, warm color. Lan Ying’s lack of “loftiness” certainly
reduced his rank in Chinese criticism.

Of course, many in this period continued to practice a more conservative
and detailed manner, especially in figure painting. Of these the most note¬
worthy was Ting Yun-p’eng whose works even Tung Ch’i-ch’ang praised as
“every hair alive.” His rather rare landscapes (77, il. p. 101), in this case in T’ang
style, are very traditional in details, but quite proper for their period in their
unified and realistic atmosphere. Tightly and carefully painted, they use color
as a surface coating. Ting’s hanging scroll in the exhibition must rank as
one of the finest ultra-conservative works in this seventeenth century. Other
paintings, such as the little handscroll by Wang Chien-chiang (78, not il.) use
this archaistic technique with a gold background in a highly decorative way.

Still another phase of traditionalism was the continued close copying of
great painters of the past. One of the very best manifestations of this form of

100

Ku I-teh

Ting Yun-p'eng

’i4M

101

4 V*

filial piety is Enjoying the Moon by Ku I-teh (79, il. p. 101) which has a colo¬
phon by the great Tung Ch’i-ch’ang himself.34 In this colophon he describes
the now lost original by the Yuan master, Wang Meng, from which the paint¬
ing by Ku was taken. Much can be learned by the visual comparison of these
known later copies with originals or presumed originals. Thus the painting is
texturally and compositionally close to Wang Meng (30, il. p. 50), but
the color and brushwork combine to produce a more immediately charm¬
ing efFect without that rough and rustic exterior which often seems charac¬
teristic of the earlier artist. The later washes are wetter in the foliage, the pine
needles and bark are more carefully and precisely treated. The ropy and strong
brush of Wang Meng has been transformed into an idiom that takes for granted
the existence of the sixteenth century, and especially Wen Cheng-ming
and Wen Po-jen (57, il. p. 85).

THE CH’ING DYNASTY: ORTHODOX PAINTERS

All of these painters worked in a confused and troubled period which
ended with the triumph of the alien Manchu Dynasty in 1644. The parallel
with the Mongol conquest of the thirteenth century immediately suggests itself
and has in it much of interest. There is a similar dichotomy involving a
strongly traditional-eclectic group and a nonconforming group of rugged indi¬
vidualists, rebellious in aesthetics as well as in politics. With the Ch’ing Dyn¬
asty we see the revolutionary style of Tung Ch’i-ch’ang and his followers be¬
come the academic manner of the late seventeenth century. This manner is
embodied in the work of “The Four Wangs.” In evaluating their contribution
we must be especially tolerant of eclecticism and unusually sensitive to the fine
shadings involved in variations on earlier styles. Almost all of their paintings
are “in the manner of” or “in homage to” some earlier master and fall quite
readily into a pattern comparable to the performance of a great composition
by a musical virtuoso. In most of their production the Wangs, with the pos¬
sible exception of Wang Yuan-ch’i (86, il. p. 106), can largely be appreciated in
terms of their consummately skillful brushwork. Consequently they will prob¬
ably always rank much higher in Chinese eyes than ever in ours.

Wang Shih-min, unrepresented here, was the oldest and, let it be said,
the dullest of the four. Wang Chien was of the same generation and a friend
of his namesake. His variation on Wang Meng (83, il. p. 103) possesses no orig¬
inality in composition but does have a personal touch, a kind of waving, roll¬
ing rhythm of considerable grace. The wet and transparent dots are skillfully

102

Wang Chien

Wang Hui

84 I detail )

placed on the foreground rocks and serve to pinion their linear movement.
Nevertheless this is painting for other painters and critics in an even more
limited sense than in the usual literary man’s style.

The subsequent generation produced the other two and more interest¬
ing members of the Four Wangs. Wang Hui was the pupil of both the older
Wangs and achieved extremely high marks from them as well as from other
critics. Wang Hui’s Bamboo Grove and Distant Mountains (84, il. p. 103), after
Wang Meng, is an excellent example of an improvisation which the Chinese
define as a “copy,” or even a “tracing.” It could never be taken as a Wang
Meng or anyone except Wang Hui himself. If there is no daring or boldness
in the composition there is the most amazing control of all the nuances possible
with brush and ink (see il. p. 84), a control comparable to that found on the
porcelains of the period. The in-and-out movement of the bamboo leaves, the
absolutely sure placement of the rocks in space, the variety of texture and tone,

104

and the precision of the brush
strokes, all these attest the refinement
and amazing skill of the artist* We
feel admiration rather than wonder
or excitement* This is nothing to
be despised; we still leave space in
our aesthetic hearts for the small but
genuine pleasures of a Fantin-Latour
or a Richard Wilson*

If Wang Hui is the greatest vir~
tuoso of the group, then Wang Yuan-
ch'i is by all odds the most original*
He must have studied Tung Gh'i-
ch’angs distortions in paint more
than his critical emphases on tradi¬
tion; and he added to these gleanings
a careful, intellectual technique with
an original and constructive use of
color* His monochrome pictures
seem more traditional than those
with color, as we can see by compar¬
ing the hanging scroll "after the style
of Huang Kung-wang” (85 , il. p*
105) with a colored work after Ni
Tsan (86, ih P* 106). The mono¬
chrome landscape provides a fine
demonstration of the typical con¬
tinuous space of later Chinese paint¬
ings essaying the earlier monumental
styles. While there is tilting and dis~
tortion of the various ground and
water levels, the space in which they
are placed seems all of a piece, not
divided and separated as, for example, in the Northern Sung hanging scrolls*
But color gives Wang Yuan-ch’i a greater opportunity for innovation and with
it he finds his full means of expression.

We shall soon have occasion to mention the use of color again, but in
a different technique. Wang's careful, almost laborious, method is really water-
color painting, not tinted ink painting. The method is not unlike that of

Wang Yuan-ch1!

105

Wang Yuan-ch'i

106

Cezanne in his water colors (126). Glazes of color, more limited in range
of hue than those used in the West, are applied one above the other and in
the distant island of the picture “after Ni Tsan” (86, il. p. 106) produce an
extremely solid and well-placed structure. The contrast with the supposed pro¬
totype style of Ni Tsan (31, il. p. 54) is a decided one and rests largely on the
successful and solid use of color as opposed to the delicate and evanescent mono¬
chrome of the earlier painter. A contemporary source gives us an excellent
description of Wang Yuan-ch’i’s working method and, incidentally, additional
proof of the often time-consuming approach of Chinese painters. The single
brush stroke, which once put down is never erased, is only one of various
creative techniques.

He started by spreading the paper, and then he cogitated for a long
while. He took some light ink and drew some general outlines indicating
in a summary way the woods and the valleys. Then he fixed the forms
of the peaks and the stones (cliffs), the terraces and the folds (of the
mountains), the branches and trunks of the trees, but each time before he
lifted the brush (to paint) he thought over the thing very carefully in
his mind. Thus the day was soon ended.

The next day he invited me again to his house and took out the same
scroll. He added on some wrinkles (on the mountains) . Then he used some
reddish brown (ochre) colour, mixed it with a little yellow gum-raisin
(sic) (gambodge) (sic), and with this painted the mountains and stones.
Thereupon he took a small flat-iron, loaded with hot coals, and with
this he ironed and dried the picture. After that he went over the stones
and the whole structure of the picture again brushing with dry ink. The
leaves of the trees were dotted in a scattering manner, the woods on the
mountains, the buildings, the bridges, ferries, streams, and beaches were
brought out clearly. Next he took some green colour mixed with water and
ink and with this he washed quite lightly and slowly, emphasizing the
lights and shadows and the relief. Then again he used the same flat-iron
as before to dry the picture. And once more he went over the hooks and
horizontal strokes, the coloured and the dotted spots from the lightest to
the darkest parts thus making the picture gradually more dense. It took
him half a month to finish a picture.

At the beginning it was all in a nebulous state (hun lun), but gradually
this was broken up, and then the scattered parts were brought together;
finally the whole thing returned again to the nebulous state. The life-
breath (ch’i) was boundless, the emptiness was filled with beauty, not a
single stroke was carelessly done. That is the reason why he spent so many
days on a work. The saying that the old painters used ten days for painting
a water course and five days for a stone may not be an exaggeration.57

The Four Wangs are the principal luminaries of what the Chinese call
the Lou-tung School which formed the basis of conservative scholarly painting
of the period. One need only examine the landscape dated 1697 (87, il. p. 108)
by Huang Ting, a pupil of Wang Yuan-ch’i, to realize that fine painting was
produced outside of the big four, but within the limits of the school. While

107

108

Huang Ting

the painting is based texturally and
compositionally on Wang Meng, the
artist has made two important
changes. The rounded contours do
not bulge, but are treated as flat
planes with textured surfaces; and
these planes recede, not by rolling
masses, but by overlapping in a man¬
ner analogous to pre-Yuan painting.

The result is a combination of mon-
umentality and intimacy which is
quite unusual and very successful.

In turn take Huang Ting’s pupil,

Chang Tsung-ts’ang (88= il. p. 109),
a favorite painter of the Ch’ien Lung
Emperor (1732-1796). While super¬
ficially similar to Wang Yuan-ch’i,

Chang has relied more on ink and
less on color. The effect is dense
and compact with a minimum aware¬
ness of space or air for containing
these densities. The result is highly abstract, almost a diagram of mass in a
vacuum. In addition the picture is marvelously well-preserved and shows, per¬
haps as much as any late painting, the sheen and liveliness of ink and trans¬
parent color on paper.

The more purely official court painters and decorators interest us little
save for one quite individual artist, Yuan Chiang, whose Carts on a Mountain
Road (89, il. p. 110) was painted in 1754 “after Kuo Hsi," the Northern Sung
master. This is a late mannerist kind of painting with an intense interest in lava¬
like forms with metamorphic overtones and strikingly like some European draw¬
ings of rocks and mountains such as the one by Jan Brueghel (123, il. p. 110),
which also borders on the grotesque. Yuan’s monumental composition of a con¬
tinuous mass in continuous space is belied by the pale, almost pastel-like, color
which reduces the monumentality while helping the decorative qualities. There
may well be European influence, quite common in eighteenth-century Chinese
painting, in the more realistic treatment of the individual parts. This also adds
to the tensions in the picture, tensions which make the whole unreal, however
real the parts. Here we can see very well how totally real the Sung or Yuan
landscape paintings are by comparison, and that this earlier reality was achieved

. * - 1. a » i « t

I S3 t: it f * i* &

It * £ ft »

r iU-

* it i 4 1 *

‘Mt-V ;

Chang Tsung-ts’ang

109

89 Yuan Chiang 123 Jan Brueghel the Elder

by magnificent intellectual control.

The aesthetic bridge between the new conservativism of the Four Wangs
and the priest-hermit-individualists of the seventeenth and eighteenth centur¬
ies is formed by two painters usually assigned to the Lou-tung School: Wu
Li and Yun Shou-p’ing. They belong, but not quite. Wu Li3 especially is
possessed by a rather different genius and the results justify his contemporary
fame and the growing appreciation of his works today. Although he was a
boyhood friend of Wang Hui and a pupil of Wang Chien, Wu Li proved his
essentially different nature by his painting and by becoming a Christian and a

110

Jesuit. The latter did not affect the
style of his painting but may have
influenced its later mood. His ear¬
lier paintings seem no different in
intention or level of accomplishment
than those of the lesser Wangs. But
he could, on occasion, step over the
boundary of accepted taste into the
realm of the unusual or the gro¬
tesque. The hanging scroll in the
style of Wang Meng, dated 1674 (90,
il. p. Ill), was painted two years be¬
fore he became a Christian and seems
a tense and turbulent, even subjec¬
tive picture. The extraordinary con¬
volutions of the rocks and the moun¬
tain peak may derive from the Yuan
master, but they go far beyond him
in exaggerated tension. These, with
the large scale, the enclosed composi¬
tion, and the somber ink make for
a dramatic and disturbing picture
really outside the bounds of then con¬
ventional taste. His second scroll in
the exhibition (91, il. p. 1 12), while
not dated, seems to belong to his
Christian years. It is a mature and
serene work of after 1700, with a
real fusion of delicate color and
touch with a monumental composi¬
tion of extreme verticality. Like Huang Ting (87, il. p. 108), the artist knew
very well how to flatten the planes and to overlap them in direct relationship to
the picture plane. The sharply vertical composition is stabilized by the sug¬
gested breadth of the base which supports the upper half by the contrapuntal,
upward thrust of the foothills. The detail (il. p. 113) reveals a delicacy and
control of the brush comparable to Wang Hui. It also suggests the metamor-
phic character of the landscape, as in the cliffhead with a large nose at the right.
Such an interest in anthropomorphic forms in nature was not just Chinese but
universal. We can cite the Great Stone Face in New Hampshire, the remarks

Wu Li

111

112

91 (detail)

113

Yun Shou-p’ing

tk*\

f ** ;* % •*> i
4 # i j

* <L

3*‘

114

of Leonardo on the subjects to be found in the worn and damaged surface of a
wall, or more recently the metamorphic landscape of Pavel Tchelitchew (128,
il. p. 112). That these disquieting forms were significant to Wu Li can be
guessed from his paintings of the human-rock formations of Huang Shan.
These, as well as his strongly, and often tense, individual compositions, link him
to such more daring individualists as Shih-t’ao. Conversely he is far less sub¬
jective and informal than the rebel artists and such a composition as 91 (il. p.
112) attains a compact and timeless expression undreamed of by either the
individualists or the orthodox.

The Four Wangs, Wu Li, and Yun Shou-p’ing are usually classed as the
Six Famous Masters of the Ch’ing Dynasty,8 the foremost exponents of ortho¬
doxy deriving from Tung Ch’i-ch’ang. Yun Shou-p’ing is more often thought
of as a flower painter, but his landscapes are reasonably numerous. If Wu Li
was a strong and individual variant of orthodoxy, Yun was his suave and subtle
counterpart. His large hanging scroll of juniper, rock, bamboo, and flowers
(92, il. p. 1 14) is one of interest for several reasons. It can be compared with
the Yuan version of a similar subject by Wu Chen (29, il. p. 49) to fully un¬
derstand the later sensuousness and archaism, more particular, more real, and
hence more individual and less rational. Concepts of nature’s principles fade
before the captivating charm of subdued color and fluent wash. The combina¬
tion of the archaistic roughness of the juniper, the delicate brush strokes of
the bamboo, and the “boneless” washes of the flower-leaves, is markedly sophis¬
ticated as is the warm, golden patina of all the painted parts. Such sensuous¬
ness cannot be fully equated with the Four Wangs, any more than can Wu
Li’s strangeness. Both painters were individuals as well as conformists. More
than a few creative artists went all the way of nonconformity.

THE INDIVIDUALISTS

I am always myself and must naturally be present in my work. The beards
and eyebrows of the old masters cannot grow on my face. The lungs and
bowels of the old masters cannot be transferred to my stomach. I express
my own lungs and bowels and show my own beard and eyebrows. If it
happens that my work approaches that of some old painter, it is he who
comes close to me, not I who am imitating him. I have got it by nature
and there is no one among the old masters whom I cannot follow and
transform.56 — Shih-t’ao

The question is how to find peace in a world of suffering. You ask why I
came hither; I cannot tell the reason. I am living high up in a tree and
looking down. Here I can rest free from all troubles like a bird in its nest.

People call me a dangerous man, but I answer: “You are like devils.’’57

— K’un-ts’an

115

With these writings and these pictures (93-101) we enter a radically
different world. In many ways the styles of painting and the attitudes towards
past or present of these Ch’ing individualists were the most extreme in the his-
tory of Chinese painting until modern times. While they were just as aware
of tradition as any of their more conservative contemporaries, their use of that
tradition was free and original. In many cases they went to Tung Ch'i-ch’ang’s
paintings rather than his writings, and extracted that artist's most advanced and
unusual approaches to form for their own use and development.12 This is
particularly true of Chu Ta and Kung Hsien. Nearly all of these men were,
in one way or another, rebels in retirement, actively out of sympathy with the
new Dynasty in particular and the world in general. In the cases of Pa-ta-shan-
jen, ShihTao, and K'un-ts'an, their assumed monk's names alone witness their
chosen path of retreat from the world. Further, the first two were connected
with Ming royal and princely lines, and the fall of that Dynasty in 1644 was
more to them than just a foreign triumph. Their position, like that of the
other, slightly later individualists, was well understood by the new powers for
their works are scarcely represented in the enormous Imperial collections. While
they were rather untouchable, these individualists were not completely so, and
their position of moral isolation was respected and often admired, even by offi¬
cialdom. We must also remember that this rebellion and isolation was aesthetic,
verbal, and ethical. Had it spilled over these limitations there might well have
been martyrdom, like that of a few late Yuan painters,

K’un-ts'an (also known as Shih-cbi) and Shih-t'ao are usually considered
together as the “Two Stones” (Shih).11 Their relationship is more than that of
a pun or a personal relationship, for among their contributions was a mutual
understanding of the creative possibilities of color. We have already seen the
constructive use of color by Wang Yuan-chi and its sensuous application by
Yun Shou-p'ing, but in the case of the Two Stones the use was governed
equally by a desire for emotional expression. In the seventeenth century, for
the first time, we find various artists experimenting with color, another index
of their personal and visual approach. Of the Two Stones, KJun-t$'an was the
more specialized. Nearly all of his paintings (93, ik p. 117) have a rather gran¬
diose and dramatic view of nature in movement, within and beyond the picture.
The trees and rocks dance and twist— only the two sages are quiescent. The
emotive meaning of the orange color used throughout the picture is given by
the inscription which speaks of a retreat from summer heat and of the rosy color
of the light coming through the clouds in the late afternoon. If any sources
for K'un-tsan's art should be mentioned, that inspiration would be Shen Chou
in such pictures as (53, ih p, 78)*

116

117

Mountain Pines near Peking

118

The second “Stone,” Shih-t’ao, is even less traditional and more varied
than the first, and this variety is well-represented here.* He seems at his best
in the small, personal format of the album leaf. Two of these, dated 170S (96,
il. p. 117), are not only of interest for their varied brushwork and composition,
but because their inscriptions (see catalog) are excellent statements of Shih-
t’ao’s unusual aesthetic position.74 The contrast between the soft, wet washes
and strokes of one, and the crisp, dry edges of the other is evident and this var¬
iety is carried out in other leaves from the album not in the exhibition. Then
there is the painting of six years earlier (94, il. p. 118) which uses a wonderful
assymetry with warm color, a complete range of brush stroke, and texture. The
result is a personal statement, but still related to what the eye sees of nature
(il. p. 1 18) in a similar situation. The suavity of the painting goes well with the
highly interesting and virtuous inscription translated in the catalog.

The album of seven leaves (95, il. p. 120), left from an originally much
larger total, is of a different nature. Small in size and very sketchy in treatment,
the pages were intended as personal notes for a friend, based on famous scenes
throughout the country. They are, therefore, more specific, not only in a de¬
scriptive sense, but in the sense of the spectator sharing an intimate experience
with the artist rather than observing something presented. This intimacy is
refreshingly new. Leaf no. 6 (il. p. 120) is of great importance because of its
relatively complex use of color; in addition to the standard triad, based on red,
blue, and green, we have a purple and a mixed blue-green used in small but
significant areas. The result is comparable to as advanced a modern painter
as John Marin (127, il. p. 120). Both pictures must be described as water color
painting, with emphasis on the word color. Still another album by Shih-t’ao
(97, il. p. 121, 122) is purely pictorial with no inscriptions or literary material.
Again there is a great variety from a dry and crabbed handling of fantastic and
forbidding rock forms to the most dashing and fluent representations of nature
in various moods. The leaf with boat and rainstorms is extremely direct and im¬
mediate and has a more than casual connection with the equally torrential storm
scene by Claude (121, il. p. 123) where the tempest is all water and boat rather
than tree and land. The universality of Shih-t’ao is due, in part, to his free
and often un-Chinese attitude toward the brush. Few, if any other Chinese
painters use the brush more pictorially, with relatively little emphasis on pre¬
cision and accuracy of the stroke. His brush-stroke method, or as he would
say, “no-method,”58 is one of noncommitment. Like a great general he holds

• An early Shih-t’ao handscroll, dated 1662, of Rocks , Orchids , and Bamboo is in The Cleveland Museum
of Art, Mr. and Mrs. William H. Marlatt Collection. (52.589)

119

127 John Marin

120

back until he sees what is needed, and then he supplies it to meet the particu¬
lar demand. “The method is complete when it is bom from the meaning, but
the method of the meaning has never been recorded/' or, “the method which
consists in not following any method is the perfect method/'66 This attitude
governs the great variety and universality of his work, which includes one of
the most interesting and unusual of all Chinese treatises on painting, the Hua
Yu Lu (Notes on Painting )/* In this, as in his painting, he goes directly to
the original words of the Ch’an Buddhist and Taoist philosophers and starts
from them, brushing aside the intervening years of commentary* Like his pic¬
torial brothers, the spontaneous masters of Southern Sung (22, iL p* 40), he is
frighteningly direct and seemingly naive* He makes us think and look anew.
Study of the old masters is for him not archaism but “Pen-hua”: Transforma-

121

97 Tao-chi (A)

tions. Painting is merely painting to Shih-t’ao, Real painting is “I-hua”: one-
stroke painting in the sense of relationship to the first, primordial stroke of
creation.

The third of these four most famous seventeenth -century individualists is
the Chu Ta of imperial lineage who became Pa-ta-shan-jen, the priest. His
most characteristic works are fish, flower, bird, and rock pictures,* but enough
of his landscapes remain to show his originality and his greatness. The land¬
scape after Kuo Chung-shu (98, il. p. 124) is derived in some of its parts, notably
the trees at the lower right, from Tung Ch'i-ch’ang. But from there on into

* A characteristic scroll, Fish and Rocks, is in The Cleveland Museum of Art* John L* Severance Collec¬
tion. (53*247)

122

121 Claude Geflee (Claude Lorram)

the picture a bolder and more accomplished hand takes over. Kuo was a rare
northern Sung master and we have nothing to go by in determining the extent
of Chu Ta’s dependence. As we look we can feel safe in assuming there is very
little. Chu has achieved monumentality in size and scale with the great twisting
movement of his cliff capped by the two peaks beyond. The view past the cliff
at the left is not new in itself, but its pictorial and abstract validity is. His
metier is not color or wrash but linear and calligraphic brush strokes. The
second hanging scroll (99, il. p. 1 25) is a colored and calmer view of flat islands
and distant shore in which the musical play of the brush is particularly delight¬
ful. The fatness and cleanness of this brush-play is characteristic from the
largest scrolls to the tiniest album leaf. The landscapes of Pa-ta-shan-jen, un¬
like those of his three parallel masters, seem more rational and less sensuous in
general effect. What sensuous quality exists is to the Chinese one of the most
sensuous of all qualities, the brush stroke. But to us he must seem a more pur¬
posefully abstract and constructivist master than the others.

123

124

125

The last of the four is Kung Hsien, no priest but nevertheless a recluse,
a cultivator of his own garden, and a painter, Kung seems the most limited of
the individualists in terms of mood and general pictorial appearance. Perhaps,
unlike Shih-t'ao, he had a method, for in addition to authoring a critical trea¬
tise, he also prepared a manual for painters. The long handscroll (100) and
the sequential album (10T il- p. 126) are typical, although the album has a few
unusual quiet and lacy pages. The illustration shows Kung’s characteristic dark
and ghostly view of nature. He depends upon a heavy massing and glazing of
ink, perhaps more so than any other Chinese painter. In these masses he places
sudden appearances of ribbons and patches of light like wraiths before his night
world. The gloomy drama of his landscapes is strangely Western as is his sys¬
tematic massing of similar brush strokes and the almost completely covered
surface of his paper. The interest in light as a true pictorial phenomenon is
apparently a development of later Chinese painting.

The measure of the originality of these and other individualists is the
ease with which we recognize their personal styles and instantly separate them
from the styles of nearly all other Chinese landscape painters. Their unique¬
ness is also a snare since their manner is so distinctive that it can be superficially
reproduced with considerable ease. To reproduce their touch is another matter,
as it is with a Rembrandt or a Renoir, Who can justify such an interest in later
painting? Even in traditional China the trace and touch of the individual be¬
came more and more important, culminating in these and other painters of the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

126

127

102 (detail) Hsiao Yun-ts’ung

103 Hsiao Yun-ts’ung

The importance of local geographic factors, including physical isolation
and environment, is always present in Chinese painting. Con tag has stressed the
importance of local collections of paintings and the local landscape in the for¬
mation of an artist’s style;13 and for this reason the standard Chinese histories
of Chinese painting tend to a rather too neat geographic basis of classification;
“The Four Masters of Anhui;” “The Eight Masters of Nanking;” “The Strange
Masters of Yangchou.” But this over-emphasis should not lead us to overlook
the partial validity of the geographic idea. Anhui province, south and west of
the usual school centers, is a case in point. Two Anhui men of late Ming and
early Ch’ing stand apart as individuals with unusual but related styles. Hung
Jen, a priest-recluse, died before Hsiao Yun-ts’ung, but was his pupil. The stu¬
dent became more famous than the master. Both are very much worth atten¬
tion. Hsiao is represented by one of his masterpieces, a long handscroll of Clear
Sounds among Hills and Water (102, il. p. 127) and a perfect example of his
late style, a small fan (103, il. p. 128) painted a year before his death. Clear
Sounds is dated 1664 and is a composition based on free-swinging rhythms and
cool, crisp color. The variety of landscape representation aids the uniformity of
the brushwork system based on angles and arcs. The clear, sharp, almost tart,
flavor of the scroll, like that of high mountain country, must have impressed the
eighteenth-century scholar, Shen Feng, who chose the title. The second work is
thinner and more delicate, in part because it is a fan, but also because of the
intervention of the pure and cold style of the dead pupil, Hung Jen. The com-

128

104

Hung-|en

129

105 Ch’a Shih-piao

130

109 Mei Ch'ing

position is, however, extremely bold, in keeping with the fantastic legend of the
subject: the magical land of flowering orchards found by a wandering fisherman.

Hung Jen does to Hsiao’s style what Chao Meng-fu did to Li Ch’eng
(26). He deletes the color and flesh of the style and leaves only the bare bones.
Of course Hung is also an ardent admirer of Ni Tsan (31, il. p. 62) and the
large hanging scroll (104, il. p. 129) is even more a tribute to his spiritual god¬
father Ni than to his actual master Hsiao. The most crystalline and angular
treatment possible produces a calculated air of unreality and refinement, as
if one were in the thinnest air of the highest mountains. The spare details are
wedded to a delicate touch and a large scale composition. His use of the old de¬
vice of flat planes, overlapped and receding into space, relates the details to the
picture surface and gives a large effect that belies the thin and delicate brush-
work. Hung Jen’s style is an essence of an essence, refined to the breaking point
and always on the verge of disappearance. But it seldom fails and the end pro¬
duct if specialized is fine and rare.

Another product of Anhui, Ch’a Shih-piao (105, il. p. 130) is more tra¬
ditional and more approachable. His abbreviating and free-flowing brush is

131

108 Mei Ch’ing

used to produce scenes with an immediate impact of great physical charm, often
in an almost full water-color technique. The last of these individualists, Mei
Ch’ing, seems less concerned with brush virtuosity and more with the Yellow
Mountains in his native Anhui. Most of his albums are made up of scenes from
this range executed “in the style of” various earlier painters. The two albums
(108, il. page 132; 109, il. p. 131) present considerable variety in subject and
quality. Mei is at his best in more complex organizations such as 109, where the
rolling, rococo movement of pine trees, leaves, waterfall, and rocks, not unlike
the movements of a Fragonard drawing (124, il. p. 133), successfully overrides
his brush. The apparently common idea of metamorphosis, as found in Wu Li
and others, is found here too. Is the man in the foreground a rock that looks
like a man, or a man sitting like a rock? Both albums are achievements in scale
reduction. For Mei Ch’ing the landscape is reduced to small rhythmical motifs
and repetitions: trees are like flowers, mountains like rocks, etc. While he re-

132

124 Jean Honore Fragonard

minds us at times of Shih-t’ao, he does not possess the amazing inventive fecun¬
dity of that artist. Mei invented some six or eight motifs and varied them ad
infinitum. For Shih-t’ao every picture is an invention. Mei Ch’ing’s works are
very special concoctions, not for constant use, but well worth knowing.

As in the case of the orthodox painters and the academicians, the
eighteenth century produced fewer individualists of great intrinsic worth, but
those few are quite up to the high levels of the preceding century. Most of these
interesting personalities are included in the “Strange Masters of Yangchou,”
from the city where they were born or to which they migrated. Hua Yen is
one of these and at his best, as in the famous Conversation in Autumn, dated
1732 (110, il. p. 134), is a stunning painter. He is not only a brush virtuoso,
but a colorist and a pictorial organizer. The twisted rocks below are height¬
ened in their tone and movement as counterpoint to the tall mountains washed
with color in the “boneless” manner. There are innumerable telling contrasts
of wet wash, dry texture, and crisp, small strokes that seem as if flicked upon
the paper (il. p. 135). The viewer feels the hand of the artist as it literally
flies over the paper. As much as any painting in the exhibition, this one has
touch and it should be compared with the fifteenth century Tu Chin (42, il. p.
66) for the same spirit in a different age. Hua Yen’s brushwork is buttressed by
a strong sense of structure as in the pierced tree trunk at the left, or in the
larger organization by contrast of excitement below and tranquillity above.
Diversified but integrated, Conversation in Autumn is a completely satisfying pic¬
ture. His later compositions are often more carefully handled but even more
original in composition. The Enjoyment of Chrysanthemums (111, il. p. 136)
uses this later interest in off-balance compositions with an unusual representa-

133

110 Hua Yen

134

110 (detail)

135

Ill

Hua Yen

112

Chin Nung

136

113 Huang Shen

tion of a highly literary activity: the tranquil scholar with his books and his
flowers in the midst of garden-like nature.

Chin Nung is a far "stranger” Yangchou scholar- pain ter, a priest with
bizarre pictorial tendencies that go farther from the norm than those of any
of the individualists. The Honolulu album, dated 1759 (112, il. p. 136), is a
rare thing, a “sketch” album with free notations which could be used later in
more developed form.4 We read of sketches from nature, but few of these have
come down from important painters. Aside from the evidently unusual com¬
positions, we are aware that strong linear elements dominate in the sketch
much more than in final versions by Chin. These latter are free, too, but use
washes of undulating color to supplement the more varied lines. The quality
of the sketches is rather close to that of the "intimist” drawings of Bonnard or
Vuillard. Even his contemporaries called Chin Nung “most peculiar” or “quite

137

115

startling,” but the illustrated painting seems as warm and sensitive as the poem
written on it:

The lotus has bloomed,

Hushed is the pool.

Early arrived the new chill . . .

How many blue-winged dragon flies are there?

Six, six water-windows open wide,

Breeze drifts under the fan,

Remember here, sitting with her . . . those slender fingers peeling lotus
seeds . . .

— tr. Gustav Ecke

Chin Nung is a highly serious artist, even in the sketch medium. Huang
Shen has a touch of humor transmitted with a nervous, flying touch. In his
album (113, il. p. 137) we see him as a kind of “sport” descendant of the Che
School. His fluttering brushwork is usually used for figure painting, but in
the landscapes he gives it even freer rein and so the outlines and wrinkles of
the rocks seem to dance in a syncopated way. His exaggeration and his humor
evidently puzzled his countrymen who called him “too extravagant” and “lack¬
ing refined beauty and harmonious ease.”57 Perhaps this explains why his
best pictures are to be found in Japan where the extremes are more easily ac¬
ceptable.

138

Chang Tao-wu

With these after all not-so-strange masters, one nears the end of creative
landscape production. An orthodox painter like Li Shih-cho may occasionally
produce a striking example of dry brushwork in a bizarre and angular compo¬
sition which is almost a play on the similarity of dry and crumbly textures in
nature: water foam, crumbling rock, and rotting tree (114, il. p. 140). Or an
unknown, sad, and unsuccessful scholar, Chang Tao-wu, will take a hack¬
neyed seasonal subject, blossom time, and contribute a fresh and charming
handscroll (1 15, il. p. 138). But by 1800 landscape and all painting has run dry
in theme, technique, and mood. And so the last of our talented painters, Ch’ien
Tu (117, il. p. 141), living on to 1844, sets himself a limited scale of dry brush-
work within a severely limited size and so is able to keep touch and breath alive
—just barely. He is a miniaturist with absolute command within his tiny range
and his dense and tight view of nature seems terribly introspective, slightly
twisted, and carefully censored. The dry-rot of latter day Imperial China re¬
quired Ch’ien Tu’s traditional scholarly response: cultivate your garden, avoid
the dusty crowd. He was enough an artist to turn the dryness into style, but
even his contribution is minuscule in the depressing light of the beginning time
of troubles. The Chinese view of nature was still a valid one and its pictorial
expression depended upon other new and individual replies but exhaustion
made no answer.

139

114

Li Shih-cho

140

117

Ch’ien Tu

141

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Ludwig Bachhofer, A Short History of Chinese
Art , New York, 1946.

2. Ludwig Bachhofer, "Chinese Landscape Paint*
mg in the Eighth Century,” Burlington Magazine ,
November, 1935.

3* Chhen Yuan, "Wu Yu-shan,” Monumenta
Serica , Vol. Ill, 1937-1938.

4. Chou Ling, "Introduction au pay sage chinois,”
Phoebus, Vol. II, No. 3, 1949.

5. Sir Kenneth Clark, “An Englishman Looks
at Chinese Painting,” The Architectural Review ,
July, 1947.

6. William Cbhn, Chinese Painting, London,
1948.

7. Victoria Con tag, "Tung Ch'i-ch’ang’s Hua
Ch an Shih Sui Pi und das Hua Shuo des Mo
Shihdung," Ostasiatische Zeitschrift, 1933.

8. Victoria Contag, Die Seeks Beruhmten Mater
der Ch'ing-Dynastie, Leipzig, 1940.

9. Victoria Contag, “Schriftcharakteristiken in
der Malerei dargestellt an Bildern Wang Mengs
und anderen Maler der Sudschule,” Ostasiatische
Zeitschrift, 1941, 27. Jahrgang, Heft

10. Victoria Contag, Chinesische Malerei der
letzten vier Jahrhunderte, Ausstellung in Museum
fur Kunst und Gewerbe, Hamburg, 1949-1950,

1L Victoria Contag, Die Beiden Steine, Braun¬
schweig, 1950.

12. Victoria Contag, "The Unique Characteristics
of Chinese Landscape Pictures," Archives of the
Chinese Art Society, VI, 1952,

13. Victoria Contag and Wang Cht-ch’uan,
Maler- und Samm ler-S te mp el aus der Ming - und
Ch*ing-Zeit , Shanghai, 1940,

14. Ernst Diez, Shan Shui, Die Chinesische Land-
schaftsmalerei, Vienna, 1943.

15. Lucy Driscoll and Kenji Toda, Chinese
Calligraphy, Chicago, 1935.

16. j, J. Dubose and L. Sickman, Great Chinese
Painters of the Ming and Ch'ing Dynasties, New
York, 1949. Wildenstein Exhibition Catalogue.

17. Gustav Ecke, "Comments on Calligraphies
and Paintings," Monumenta S erica, Vol. Ill, 1957-
1938,

18. John C. Ferguson, "Chinese Landscapists,”
Asia Major: Hirth Anniversary Volume, London,
1923.

19. John C. Ferguson, Chinese Painting, Chicago,
1927.

20. Otto Fischer, “Die Entwricklung der Raum
darstellung In der Chinesische Kunst,” Ostasia¬
tische Zeitschrift, II, 1913-14,

21. Otto Fischer, Chinesische Landschaftsmalerei,
Munchen, 192L

22. Otto Fischer, Die Chinesische Malerei der
Han-Dynastie, Berlin, 193L

23. H. A. Giles, A Short Biographical Dictionary ,
London, 1898.

24. H. A. Giles, An Introduction to the History
of Chinese Pictorial Art, Rev. ed., London, 1918.

25. Ernst Grasse, Die Ostasiatische Tuschmalerei ,
Berlin, 1923.

26. Binzan Harada, Shinn Meigwa Hokan: A
Pageant of Chinese Painting , Tokyo, 1936.

27. Illustrated Catalogue of Chinese Government
Exhibits for the International Exposition of
Chinese Art in London, Shanghai, 1936, Vol, III,

28. Soame jenyns, A Background to Chinese
Painting, London, 1935.

29. Ku Rung: Vols. 1-43. Palace Museum, Peking,
1929-1936.

30. Ku Rung Shu Hua Chi : Collection of Cal¬
ligraphic* and Paintings in the Palace Museum,
Peiping, 1929-35. 45 Vols.

31. Kuo Hsi, An Essay on Landscape Painting,
London, 1936. Translated by S, Sakanishi: Wisdom
of the East Series.

32. Ku Teng, "Tuschespieie,” Ostasiatische
Zeitschrift, 1932-

33. Berthold Laufer, "The Wang-chuan t'u, a
Landscape of Wang Wei,” Ostasiatische Zeitschrift,
1931.

34. Aschwin Lippe, "Enjoying the Moon,”
Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, May, 1951.

35. Aschwin Lippe, “A Christian Chinese
Painter,” Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin,
December, 1952.

36. Aschwin Lippe, "Waterfall by Chu Chieh,”
Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, November,
1953,

37. Benjamin March, "Linear Perspective in
Chinese Painting,” Eastern Art, III, 1931.

38. Benjamin March, Some Technical Terms of
Chinese Painting, Baltimore, 1935.

39. E. Matsumoto, "On the Eastward Propagation
of the Indian Method of Mountain Portrayal,”
Rokka , No. 618.

40. Prudence Myer, Landscape Elements in the
Earlier Caves at Tun-huang, A thesis accepted by
the Institute of Fine Arts of NewT York University,
1947-1948. Digest published in Marsyas, Vol. V,
1947-1949.

41. Paul Pelliot, Les groties de Touen Houang,
Paris, 1914-24, Six portfolios.

42. Raphael Petrucci, La philosophic de la
nature dans Tart d’ Extreme-Orient, Paris, 1910.

43. Raphael Petrucci, Encyclopedia de la pein-
ture chinoise: Riai-tseu-yuan houa tchouan, Paris,
1918.

44. Alan Priest, "Southern Sung Landscapes:
The Horizontal Scrolls,” Metropolitan Museum of
Art Bulletin, March, 1950,

45. Alan Priest, "Southern Sung Landscapes:
The Album Leaves,” Metropolitan Museum of
Art Bulletin, April, 1950,

46. Alan Priest, "Southern Sung Landscapes: The
Hanging Scrolls," Metropolitan Museum of Art
Bulletin, February, 1950.

47. Alan Priest, "Landscapes: Green and Blue,"
Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, March,
1951.

48. Benjamin Rowland, "The Problem of Hui
Tsung,” Archives of the Chinese Art Society of
America, V, 1951,

49. George Rowley, Principles of Chinese Paint¬
ing, Princeton, 1947.

142

50* Richard Rudolph and Wen Yu, Han Tomb
Art of West China, Berkeley and Los Angeles,

1951.

51. Shio Sakanishi, The Spirit of the Brush ,
London, 1939.

52. S* Shimada and Y. Yonezawa, Painting of
Sung and Yuan Dynasties, Tokyo, 1952.

53. Shina Nangwa Taisei , Tokyo, 1926. (Nan
Hua Ta Chien).

54. Osvald Siren, Chinese Paintings in American
Collections, London, 1927-28, two portfolios*

55. Osvald Siren, A History of Early Chinese

Painting, London, 1933, two volumes.

56. Osvald Siren, The Chinese on the Art of

Painting , Peiping, 1936*

57. Osvald Siren, A History of Later Chinese

Painting , London, 1938, two volumes.

58. Osvald Siren, "Shih-t'ao, Painter, Poet, and
Theoretician T” Bulletin of the Museum of Far
Eastern Antiquities, Stockholm , No. 21, 1949.

59. Sogen Minshin Meigwa Taikan (Collection
of Famous Paintings of the Sung, Yuan, Ming and
Ch'ing Dynasties), Tokyo, 1931,

60. Alexander C* Soper, "Early Chinese Land-

scape Painting," Art Bulletin, XX1I1, 1941.

61* Alexander C, Soper, ‘‘The First Two Laws of
Hsieh Ho/' The Far Eastern Quarterly, August,
1949.

62. Alexander C. Soper, Kuo Jo-hsu’s Experiences
in Painting, Washington, 1951.

63. Soraikwan Kinsho: Chinese Paintings in the
Collection of Abe Fusajiro, Osaka, 1930 ff* Six
volumes. Two pts.

64* Werner Speiser, "Die Yuan — Klassik der
Landschaftstnalerei/* Qstasiatische Zeitschrift, 1931.

65. Werner Speiser, "T'ang Yin,” Qstasiatische
Zeitschrift, 1935.

66. Werner Speiser, Meisterwerke Chinesiscker
Malerei, Berlin, 1947.

67. Michael Sullivan, "On the Origin of Land¬
scape Representation in Chinese Art," Archives
of the Chinese Art Society of America, VII, 1953.

68. Michael Sullivan, "Pictorial Art and the
Attitude Toward Nature in Ancient China,” Art
Bulletin, March* 1954.

69. Sei-ichi Taki, Three Essays on Oriental
Painting, London, 1910*

70* Teng Ku, "Einfuhrung in die Geschichte der
Malerei Chinas," Sinica, X, 1935*

71. Kojiro Tomita, Portfolio of Chinese Paint¬
ings in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (Han to
Sung), Second rev. ed. Cambridge (Mass.), 1938*

72. Kojiro Tomita, "Snowscape by Shih Chung,”
Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts, April, 1940.

73. Kojiro Tomita and Kaiming Chiu, "An
Album of Landscapes and Poems by Shen Chou
(1427-1509),” Bulletin of the Museum of Fine
Arts, June, 1948.

74* Kojiro Tomita and Kaiming Chiu, " Album
of Twelve Landscapes by Tao-chi (Shih-t'ao), "
Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts, October,
1949*

75* Kojiro Tomita and Kaiming Chiu, “Album
of Six Chinese Paintings Dated 1618, by LI Liu-
fang (1575-1629)," Bulletin of the Museum of Fine
Arts, June, 1950*

76. To-so Gen-min meigwa tai kwan: Catalogue
of Exhibition of Chinese Paintings of the T'ang,
Sung, Yuan and Ming Periods, Tokyo Imperial
Museum, 1928, Tokyo, 1930. Four volumes.

77. Irene Vincent, The Sacred Oasis ; Caves of
the Thousand Buddhas, Tun Hwang, with a pre¬
face by Pearl Buck, Chicago, 1953.

78. Arthur Waley, An Index of Chinese Artists,
London, 1922* ("Erganzimgen zu Waley ’s Index,"
by Werner Speiser, Ostasiatiscke Zeitschrift, 1931
and 1938).

79. Arthur Waley, An Introduction to the Study
of Chinese Painting, London, 1923.

80. A. G. Wenley, "The Question of the Fo¬
shan Hsiang- lu," Archives of the Chinese Art
Society of America, III* 1948-49.

81. Chiang Yee, The Chinese Eye, London, 1936*

82. Chiang Yee, Chinese Calligraphy, London,
1938*

83. T'ang Sung I-lai Ming-hua-chi, two volumes.
Catalog of the Chang Ts’ung-yu Collection*

84. J. Tamura and Y. Kobayashi, Tomb and
Mural Paintings of Ching Ling , Kyoto, 1952.

85. Sherman E, Lee, "The Story of Chinese
Painting," Art Quarterly , Winter, 1948.

86. Louise W* Hackney and Yau Chang-foo, A
Study of Chinese Paintings in the Collection of Ada
Small Moore, London, New York, Toronto, 1940.

143

CATALOG*

1. EWER, il. p. 11.

Bronze with incised decoration of figures in a
landscape; H. 3"; W. 8i/£"; D. 9i/2". Reputedly
from Ch’ang Sha, Late Chou Period (5th-3rd c.
B.C.). Publ: Bibl. 68.

Lent by Seattle Art Museum, Eugene Fuller Mem¬
orial Collection.

2. TOMB TILE, il. title page.

Terra cotta with stamped designs; H. 14"; W.
3' 5i/£". Later Han Dynasty (A.D. 2nd-3rd c.). The
Cleveland Museum of Art, Gift of Mr. and Mrs.
Ralph King.

3. RURAL LANDSCAPE SCENE, il. p.

12.

Rubbing of a tomb tile, the original of molded
clay; H. I614"; W. 181/J". From Cheng-tu, Szech¬
uan; Han Dynasty (206 B.C.-A.D. 220). Publ: Bibl.
50, p. 32, pi. 76.

Lent by Dr. Richard Rudolph, Los Angeles.

4. “HILL JAR/* il. p. 12.

Hard reddish pottery cylinder on three feet, lead
glaze; H. lOi/J"; D. IO94". Han Dynasty (206 B.C.-
A.D. 220). The Cleveland Museum ot Art, J. H.
Wade Collection.

5. PAINTED TOMB TILE, il. p. 13.

Black and red color on slip over gray earthen¬
ware; L. 41"; H. 8i/£". Late Han or Early Six
Dynasties (3rd-5th c.). Publ: Bibl. 67. The Cleve¬
land Museum of Art, Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Nasli
M. Heeramaneck.

6. CUP, il. p. 14.

Bronze with incised landscape design; H. 3i4";
D. 4". Early Six Dynasties Period (4th-6th c.).
Lent by Mrs. Walter Sedgwick, London.

WANG WEI (Yu-ch’eng), 698-759, Shansi-
Honan

7. WANG CHUAN, il. p. 18.

Handscroll; ink and color on silk; L. 15' 9i/£";
W. lime". Late Ming or Early Ch’ing copy. The
colophons are reproductions.

• The artist’s usual name is given first with his
most common by-name in parentheses. His dates
are followed by his place of birth or activity,
where known. The seal and colophon information
varies from relatively complete to incomplete,
depending upon time, availability, and significance.
No effort has been made to include every instance
of publication or reproduction. The abbreviation
C & W refers to Bibl. 13, the most available
reference on artists’ and collectors’ seals of the
Ming and Ch’ing periods. In most cases the page
referred to has an identical or comparable seal
to those on the exhibits.

Lent by Seattle Art Museum, Eugene Fuller Me¬
morial Collection.

ANONYMOUS

8. SCENES FROM THE EARLY LIFE
OF THE BUDDHA (THE EPISODE OF
THE ARCHERY CONTEST), not il.

Fragment of a border of a large mandala; ink
and color on silk; H. 2Si/$"; W. 7i/£". From Tun
Huang; 10th c. Publ: Tonko ga, vol. 2, pi. LXXV,
left.

Lent by Musfe Guimet, Paris.

ANONYMOUS

9. THE MIRACLES OF AVALOKITES-
VARA, il. p. 16.

Votive painting; ink and color on paper; H.
32s4"; W. 25". From Tun Huang; dated 943.
Publ: Tonko-ga, vol. 2, pi. XLI, right.

Lent by Mus£e Guimet, Paris.

ANONYMOUS

10. THE TRIBUTE HORSE, il. p. 20.

Originally a hanging scroll; ink and color on
silk; H. 32s4"; W. 443,4". lOth-llth a Publ:
Bulletin of The Metropolitan Museum of Art,
October, 1 943.

Lent by The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
York.

ANONYMOUS

1 1. BUDDHIST TEMPLE IN THE
HILLS AFTER RAIN, il. p. 22.

Hanging scroll; ink and very slight color on silk;
slightly cut down; H. 44"; W. 22". Northern Sung
Dynasty (960-1127). Ex.Coll: Imperial collection
of a 12th c. Sung Emperor; Liang Ch’ing-piao
(1620-1691); Hsu Ch’ien-hsueh (1631-1694); Miao
Yueh-tsao (1682-1761); Miao Tsun-i, son of Miao
Yueh-tsao; Shen Shu-jung (1832-1873).

Lent by Nelson Gallery of Art and Atkins Museum,
Kansas City, Missouri.

ATTRIBUTED TO HSU TAO-NING, act.
10th c., Ho-chien — Ch’ang-an, Honan.

12. FISHING IN A MOUNTAIN
STREAM, il. p. 24.

Handscroll; ink on silk; L. 82i/£"; W. 19".
Northern Sung Dynasty (960-1127). 25 seals in¬
cluding 10 of Keng Chao-chung (1640-1686), C &
W., p. 564; 1 of Prince I (See Cat. 31); and 2 of
An Ch’i (1683-ca. 1742). Recorded: Ta Kuan Lu,
XIII/25. Publ: / Lin Yueh K’an, nos. 53 and 54.
Lent by Nelson Gallery of Art and Atkins Museum,
Kansas City, Missouri.

144

ATTRIBUTED TO KUO HSI (Ho-yang)*
ca. 1020-90* Honan.

1 3. MOUNTAIN LANDSCAPE, il* p* 26.

Handscroll; ink on silk; L. 15' 9i4"; W. 21%/'*
There is possibly the seal of the Sung Emperor,
Hsi Sung Publ; Bibl. 1, fig, 99; Bibl. 6f fig, 51*
Lent by The Toledo Museum of Art.

ANONYMOUS

1 4. STREAMS AND MOUNTAINS
WITHOUT END, il, p* 27.

Handscroll; ink and slight color on silk; L.
83^4"; H. 11%-. Northern Sung Dynasty, Early
12th c. 49 seals and 9 colophons, the earliest dated
1205, the last by Wang To (1592- 1652). The most
notable colophon author is K'an Li -kuei, the
famous Yuan calligrapher. The seals include
those of Liang Ch’ing-piao (1620-1691) 8 seals,
Emperors Ch'ien Lung through Hsu an T'ung
(I8th-20th c*) 9 seals, and Chang Ta-chien, modern
painter and collector. Publ: S. Lee and W. Fong,
Streams and Mountains Without Ascona, 1954.
The Cleveland Museum of Art, Gift of Hanna
Fund.

MI YU- JEN (Yuan-hui)* act. first half
12th c.* Kiangsu

1 5* CLOUDY MOUNTAINS, il. p. 15.

Handscroll; ink, white and slight touches of
color on silk; L. 6' 3%": W. 17%2". Poem and
inscription by the artist:

Innumerable are the wonderful mountain
peaks which join the end of the sky,
Cool and dark, the smoky mist is lovely both
in the evening and under daylight;

To make known that the gentleman has been
here,

I am leaving traces of my brush at your house.
(1130 A.D.) year, done at Hsing Gh'ang,
Yuan-hui (signature), Yuan Hui playfully
made” (seal)

Tr. by Wen Fong
4 colophons, 3 by Wang To (1592-1652), 1 by Chen
Kuang. Ex.Coll: Prince Ch'eng; Pi Chien-fd; Li
Chih kai; Wang To; T. Yamamoto. Publ: Bibl. 6;
26; Chokaido Shoga Mohutokuf 19S2, 1/98 (Cat. of
the Yamamoto Coll.). The Cleveland Museum of
Art, J. H. “Wade Collection,

CHIANG TS’AN (Chiang Kuan-tao), act,
first half 12th c.* Chekiang*

16. VERDANT MOUNTAINS, il. p. 30.

Handscroll; ink and slight color on silk; L. 9'
8l,4w; H. 1234** Four character signature: Chiang
Ts an of Chiang-nan. (Signature and two seals of
the artist are an interpolation.) Colophon by K‘o
Chiu-ssu (1312-1365), colophon by Emperor Ch ien
Lung, dated 1785, 22 seals, including those of
Liang Ch’ing-piao (162QT691), Sung Lo (1634-
1713), and the Emperors Ch'ien Lung. Chia ChTing,
and Hsuan T'ung. Rec: Shih-ch*u Pao-chi , Part
H, Yu-shu-fang.

Lent by Nelson Gallery of Art and Atkins Museum,
Kansas City, Missouri.

ANONYMOUS

17. A COTTAGE BY A RIVER IN
AUTUMN, il* p. 34

Fan -shaped album painting; ink and color on
silk; H. 9p£"; W* 10^4". Traditionally attributed
to Uu Sung- men, act. 1190-1230. 5 collectors' seals.
Ex. Coll: Wu Tsan (18th c.), Li Tsai-hsien (19th
c*). Publ: Bibl. 71, pi. 88,

Lent by Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

LI SUNG, 1195-1265.

18* MOUNTAINS AND THE JASPER
SEA OF THE IMMORTALS* il p. 35.

Oblate circular form album leaf; ink and slight
color on silk; H. IOl^"; W. 9^4 "* Signature of the
artist on face of cliff, upper right. Publ: Bibl* 55,
II, pi* 7L

Lent by Nelson Gallery of Art and Atkins Museum,
Kansas City, Missouri,

ANONYMOUS

T9. LANDSCAPE WITH RETURNING
HERDER AND BUFFALO* il. p. 38*

Album leaf mounted as a hanging scroll; ink
on silk; H. 8^4 **\ W, 9^4". Traditionally attributed
to Li T'ang, act. first quarter 12th c* Ex. Coll:
Masuda Odawara.

Lent by Howard Hollis and Company, Cleveland.

HSIA KUEI (Yu-yu), act. ca. 1180-1230*
Chekiang.

20* TWELVE SCENES FROM A
THATCHED COTTAGE* il p* 38*

Handscroll; ink on silk; L. T $¥4”; W* II". Four
character signature: ‘Tainted by the Official, Hsi a
Kuei", 10 seals, most of them unidentified. The
round seal with a square interior near the end of
the painting may be a nien-hao of Emperor Sung
Li Tsung. The Chiang-ts*un Hsiao-hsta Lu, de¬
scribing the complete painting in the late 17th c.,
mentions at both ends five Sung Dynasty seals and
three of the Yuan Dynasty. 8 colophons, including
colophons by Shao Heng-chen, act. in the late
1 4th c.? Tung Ch'i-ch’ang (1555-1636), Wang Shih-
ku (1632-1717), Viceroy Tuan Fang (1861-1911).
Rec: Shan-ku wang Hua Lu XXIII/38 (1st half
1 7th o), Shih -ku-fang Shu- hua Hui-k’ao XIV/64
(ca, 1682), Chiang- t$run Hsiao- hsia Lu 1/30 (1693),
Pei-wen-chai Shu-hua P’u LXXXVIII/26 (1708),
Nan Sung Yuan Hua Lu VI /3 (1721), Mo-yuan
Hui-kuan 6 (hsu) III (1742), Chu-chia Ts'ang-hua
Pu IX/XIV (2nd half 1 8th c.). Publ. and/or Rep:
Famous Chinese Paintings , vol, 5. (Chung-kuo
Ming-hu Ti-wu-chi), Shanghai, n*d.; Kokka f no. 2,
Tokyo, 1936; Bibl. 44.

Lent by Nelson Gallery of Art and Atkins Museum,
Kansas City, Missouri,

145

ANONYMOUS

21* RIVER LANDSCAPE IN WIND
AND RAIN, il. p. 39.

Fan-shaped album leaf; ink on silk; H. 9i/£";
W. 10;4". Southern Sung Dynasty (12th-l3th c.).
3 seals of Hsiang Yuan-pien (1525-1590). Ex.CoIl;
A, W. Bahr.

Lent by The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
York,

LIANG K’AX (FO), act. ca. 1203, Chekiang
(Hangchou),

22. WINTER LANDSCAPE WITH
BIRDS, il. p. 40.

Album painting; ink and faint color on silk;
H. 9i/g"; W. 10". Signed "Liang K'ai." Remains
of 4 (?) seals. Publ; Bibl 79, pi. XLV.

Lent by Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University f
Cambridge, Massachusetts.

ANONYMOUS

23. LANDSCAPE WITH FLIGHT OF
GEESE, il p. 42.

Hanging scroll; ink and color on silk; H. 25^4";
W. 15". 13 th- 14th c. From a Japanese provenance.
Lent by The Art Institute of Chicago.

ANONYMOUS

24. LANDSCAPE, not il.

Handscroll; ink on silk; L. 18'; W. lOi/J". 13th-
14th c. Publ: C> F. Kelley, "Chinese Painting/'
Art Institute of Chicago Quarterly s XLV, no. 4,

pp. 68-70.

Lent by The Art Institute of Chicago.

CHTEN HSU AN (Shun-chu), 1235-1290,
Chekiang

25. HOME AGAIN, il, p. 44.

Handscroll; ink and color on paper; L. 42"; H.
10^" Inscription, signature, and 2 seals of the
artist. Colophons; among the seals are those of
Hsiang Yuan-pien (1525-1590), Ch'ien Lung Em¬
peror, The picture illustrates the famous poem
by Tao Ch’ien (365-427), Publ: Bibl. 19, p. 147.
Lent by The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
York.

CHAO MENG-FU (Tzu-ang), 1254-1322,
Hopei -Chekiang

26. LANDSCAPE WITH TWIN PINE
TREES, il. p. 44.

Handscroll; ink ou paper; L. 42i4"; H. lO1/^
Two inscriptions and seals of the artist:

Landscape painting is a genre I am not skilled
in. The fact is, of the wonderful works of the
T'ang masters, Wang Yu-ch'eng, General Li
p£re, General Li fils, Cheng Kuang-wen, there
aren’t more than one or two to be seen these

days. The Five Dynasties masters such as
Ching Hao, Kuan T'ung, Tung Yuan, and Fan
K’uan are absolutely different from the works
of recent times. I dare not claim that my
paintings are comparable to those of the
ancients; contrasted with those of recent times
I dare say they are a bit different. Since Y'eh-
yun has asked me for a painting, 1 write this
at the end of it. Chao Meng-fu.

— Translation of an identical inscription
from a probable copy published in Art
Quarterly f vol. XV, no. 4 (Winter, 1952),
by H. Munsterberg.

Ex.Coll: Yang Tsai (Yuan), T'ung Hsuan (Ming),
Liang Ch'ing-piao (1620-1691), An Ch/i (1683-ca.
1742), Ch'ien Lung, and later Imperial collections.
Lent by The Bamboo Studio, New York,

CHAO YUNG (Chung-mu), born 1289,
Chekiang

27, LANDSCAPE WITH FISHERMEN,
il. p. 47.

Hanging scroll; ink and color on silk; H.

W. 16^". One seal of the artist at lower right
(Chung-mu), G k W., p, 527. no. 3. 3 collectors'
seals, 2 seals of Chang Ts’ung-yu (20th c.) on
mounting. Publ: Bibl. 83; 26.

Lent by Frank Caro, successor to C. T. Loo, New
York.

LI SHIH-HSINGj 1282-1328, Kweichou

28. THE GUARDIANS OF THE
VALLEY, il, p. 48,

Hanging scroll; ink on silk; H, 67 ifi*; W. 38^".
Signed, two seals of the artist with possibly one
other. One seal of Yin Hsiang (Prince I), see Cat.
31. One unidentified seal.

Lent by Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts,

WU CHEN ( Chu-yu ) , 1280-1354, Chekiang

29* ROCKS, REEDS, OLD TREE AND
BAMBOO, il. p, 49.

Hanging scroll; ink on silk; H. 65^"; W. 38^",
One poem on bamboo by the artist and 2 seals of
the artist, C Sc W., p. 515, nos. 2, 3, Signed and
dated 1338. Two unidentified seals; 2 seals of
Liang Ch'ing-piao (1620-1691); 1 seal of C.C. Wang
(20th c.).

Lent by The Bamboo Studio, New York.

WANG MENG, ca. 1320-1385, Chekiang

SO. FISHING IN THE GREEN
DEPTHS, il. p* 51.

Hanging scroll; ink and color on smooth paper;
damaged and repaired, dearly visible; H. 34^g";
W. 171/2". Signed with a poem on the right:

Your home is over the clean flood
And you drop your hook in green depths;

Dew dampens the hibiscus moon

146

And fragrance soft in the lotus wind.

The drifting boat enters dreamy isles,

And in the press of flowers sits your flute;
Knowing only him who lives forgetting,

No thought for the Old Man of the Frontier.*
Huang-hao-shan-chung-jen (The-man-from-
the-heart-of-Yellow-Crane- Mountain), Wang
Shu-ming (i.e. Wang Meng) painted and
inscribed.

— tr. by R. Edwards.
2 other poems by unidentified contemporaries of
the artist; 3 old but unidentified collectors’ seals;
2 unidentified seals on the probably-Yuan inscrip¬
tion at left. Rec: Shan-hu-wang XI /5, 1643 (full
description); Shih-Ku-t’ang XXI /6, 1682; P’ei-wen -
chai LXXXVI/12, 1708.

Lent by The Bamboo Studio, New York.

NI TSAN, 1301-1374, Kiangsu

31. RIVER PAVILION AND MOUN¬
TAIN SCENERY, il. p. 54.

Hanging scroll; ink on paper; H. 32%6"l W.
13i/6". Seven character line poem, dated 1368, 3rd
month, 10th day, signed Tsan (see p. 53). Inscrip¬
tion by the artist:

Shu-kuei, my friend, asking me to go to a
priest’s dwelling, with this paper requested
a painting, and I informally painted “River
Pavilion and Mountain Scenery’’ and added
this poem in the righthand corner.

— tr. by R. Edwards.
Inscription on left by Hsieh Ch’ang (Yen Ming),
an official of Hung Wu period (1368-1398) with
three seals. Collectors’ seals: (2) Yin Hsiang
(Prince I), a hereditary title that began 1686-1730;
(3) Ta Chung-kuang (1623-1692), C & W., p. 310;
(1) Wang Hung-hsu (1645-1723), C & W., p. 533.
The picture is possibly that recorded in Li Jih-
hua’s (1589-1616) Wei-shui-hsuan-jih-chi, VI/47,
where it is considered unreliable but a good paint¬
ing.

Lent by The Bamboo Studio, New York.

TS’AO CHIH-PO, died 1355, Kiangsu

32. A PAVILION NEAR OLD PINES,
il. p. 57.

Album leaf mounted as a hanging scroll; ink
on paper; small damages and repairs; H. 18%";
W. 14%". Inscription: The Balcony of the Over¬
flowing Swamp (Wa Ying Hsien; a retreat); did
this for the Liang Ch’ang Grass Hall (a re¬
treat); seal of the artist: Yun Hsi.

6 Ch’ien Lung seals; 2 Hsuan T’ung seals. Publ:
Bibl. 19, opp. p. 148.

Lent by Walter Hochstadter, New York.

• “Old Man of the Frontier’’ refers to a figure
in the old Chinese text, Huai-nan-tzu, whose good
fortune turns to bad and whose bad fortune later
becomes good. His experiences stands as a symbol
of the unpredictable quality of change and of the
measureless nature of truth.

CHAO YUAN, act. ca. 1360-1400, Kiangsu-
Shantung

33. SAYING FAREWELL TO A GUEST
AT CH’ING CH’UAN, il. p. 58.

Hanging scroll; ink on paper; H. 37i/4"; W.
13%". Inscription and seal of the artist, C & W.,
p. 526, no. 2. Seals of An Ch’i (1683-after 1742),
seals of Ch’ien Lung (1736-1796); seals of Chang
Ts’ung-yu (20th c.). Rec: An Ch’i’s catalog, Afo-
yuan-hui-kuan, V/29. Publ: C & W., p. 526; Bibl.
83.

Lent by The Bamboo Studio, Ncwr York.

YAO TTNG-MEI, 14th c.

34. THE SCHOLAR’S LEISURE, il. p.
58.

Handscroll: ink on paper; L. 33%e"; H. 9^6".
Inscription: 1360, spring, first month. I did this
and added my humble words at the end, fol¬
lowed by a poem signed Yao T’ing-mei of Wu
Hsing.

Collectors’ seals: Liang Ch’ing-piao (1620-1691),
Emperors Ch’ien Lung, Chia Ch’ing, and Hsuan
T’ung. The poem on the painting by the Ch’ien
Lung Emperor is dated 1755. Ex. Coll: Chang
Ts’ung-yu (20th c.). Publ: Bibl. 83.

Lent by Frank Caro, successor to C. T. Loo, New
York.

CH’EN JU-YEN, act. 1350, Kiangsu

35. LO FOU SHAN’S WOOD-CUTTER,
not il.

Hanging scroll; ink on somewhat darkened silk;
H. 41 W. 21". Text written by the artist on
top left of the painting: 1366, 1st Moon', 16th day,
Lu Shan Ch’en Ju-yen painted for Magistrate
Szu-ch’i, the painting of Lo Fou Shan’s wood¬
cutter.

Ex.Coll: Magistrate Szu-ch’i’s family, Lu P’eng-
sheng (2 seals), Wang Shih-min: 1592-1680 (4

seals), Rung Heng-p’u (1 seal), Chang Tsung-yu,
20th c. (4 seals). Rec: Li Tai Chu Lu Hua Mo,
vol. 3, p. 296; Jan Li Kuan Kuo Yen Hsu Lu, vol.
4, p. 7. Publ: Bibl. 83.

Lent by Frank Caro, successor to C. T. Loo, New
York.

HSU PEN (Hsu Fen), act. ca. 1380, Sze-
chuan-Kiangsu (Suchou)

36. STREAMS AND MOUNTAINS, il.

p. 60.

Hanging scroll; ink on paper; H. 26%"; W.
10i/4". One poem and inscription of the artist:
Green trees, the oriole,

everywhere are mountains;

Then from over the valleys
see the returning cloud.

Man’s life does not allow
unbroken ease,

But the high climb, the looking down —
this is leisure.

147

1372 on the 10th day of the 7th month , Hsu
Pen did this painting and then added the
poem above it for Chi-fu.

— tr. by R, Edwards.
4 other poems with 3 seals by contemporaries of
Hsu Pen: Hsieh Hui, Kao Ch’i, Lu Chen, and
Huang Tsai. Hsieh Hui writes: "When Hsu Pen
was visiting Wu-hsing (Chekiang) he did the paint¬
ing Streams and Mountains , and added a poem to
present to Chi-fu, and I have written this.*' 2
unidentified collectors' seals on the painting; 3
seals on the mounting, including 2 of Xiang
Chlng-piao (1620-1601), and 1 title with a seal,
possibly the writing and seal of Liang Ch’mg-piao.
Lent by Walter Hochstadter, New York.

PIEN CHING-CHAO (Pien Wen-chin),
act early 15th c.3 Fukien

37, LANDSCAPE WITH WILD
HORSES, not i 1.

Album painting; ink and color on silk; H. 9%6";
W. 914®". Signed Pien Ching-chao, One possibly
spurious seal of the GMen Lung Emperor; 4 un¬
identified collectors' seals.

Lent by Heeramaneck Galleries, New York.

CHIN WEN-CHIN, act 1400-1450*

Kiangsu

38. TEN THOUSAND BAMBOOS, il
p. 6L

Handscroll; ink on paper; L. 29' 9i/£"; H. 13^4".
Dated 1438; 14 colophons including the artist's
inscription, all on the painting. 44 seals not count¬
ing mounting seals; 4 seals of Hsiang Yuan- pien
(1525-1590). Publ. as by Kuan Tao-sheng in G,
Siren. Kinas Konst, vol. 2, p. 423.

Lent by Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.

HSIA CHANG (Chung-chao), 1388-1470,
Shantung

39* THE BANKS OF THE SERENE
HSIANG RIVER, iL p. 62.

Handscroll; ink on paper; L. 30' 9%"; H. 12^".
6 colophons, including 2 by Wang Ao (act. ca,
1465) and 1 by Fu Han (act. 1464-1506). Ex. Coll:
Lu Shih-hua, 1714-1779 (3 seals). Also 17 unidenti¬
fied seals. Rec: Wu Yueh So-chien Shu-hua Lu,
vol, 4, p. 34 ff. Second preface dated 1777. Title
by Chang Heng, (Here listed under name of
Wang Fu.)

Lent by Nelson Gallery of Art and Atkins Museum,
Kansas Oty, Missouri.

LIU CHUEH, 1410-1472, Kiangsu (Suchou)

40. LANDSCAPE IN THE STYLE OF
NI TSAN, il. p. 55,

Hanging scroll; ink on paper; H. 58^4"; W.
21 Inscription and 1 seal of the artist. Colo¬
phon by Shen Chou, see p. 53. Ex. Co 11: Kao Shih-

ch'i (1695-1704). Publ: Mostra di Pitture Cinese
Ming e Ch’ing , Rome, April, 1950.

Lent by Mus£e Guimet, Paris.

TAI CHIN, act. ca. 1446, Chekiang

41, TEN THOUSAND LI OF THE
YANGTZE, il, p. 64.

Handscroll; ink and color on paper; L. 38'

H. I3y£". 2 seals of the artist: Tai Chin, Wen
Chin; and 1 colophon:

In my old family collection of paintings, there
is a Sung scroll titled Ch'ang Chiang Wan Li
(literally. Long River of ten thousand miles,
referring to the YangUe River), The brush-
work is quiet and graceful; the depicted ob¬
jects are elegant and expressive. It is indeed
a masterpiece. The other day, at my classmate
Ghiu-farfs place, I saw a painting with the
same title done by Chou Tung-ts'un (this is
the painting recorded in the Ghiang-Ts’un -
Hsiao -hi, 1693, Kao Shih -chi's catalog). In view
of the rendering of the mountains, waters,
pavilions, boats, and carriages, the latter paint¬
ing is of a different interest than that of my
Sung painting, whose brush is thick and well-
blended, enlivened by a note of elegance, a
quality that could never be attained by the
Yuan and Ming artists. The technique of
Tung-ts'un is derived from various schools of
Sung and Yuan, Although it has kept Its
own individuality, it lags far behind a Sung
painting in liveliness and humor. This seems
to be conditioned by its lateness in time, and
the deficiency seems rather inevitable. Today,
I have just looked over this Tai Wen-chin
scroll. The brush is aged yet still fresh. Often
there are strange poses and gestures. Obviously,
it was created with such a smooth play
between the heart and the hands, and a har¬
monious movement with the ancient methods,
that there were qualities which Tung-ts'un
could not possibly match. Tung Hsiang-kuang
(Tung Chl-ch'ang), in commenting on Li
Po-shih's copy of Tung Yuan's Hsiao-hsiang-
tu, has remarked that in spite of his fame,
Li Po-shih lacks this "age and freshness11
in his work. From this, we know that Wen-
chin's "aged and yet fresh brush" would have
been greatly praised by Tung Hsiang-kuang.
Anyone who understands this will back me
on this point,

Ch’ien Lung, Cha Ying (1794), autumn, 8th
month, at Yang-chou, Wang Wen<hih
(Meng-lu) has written this.

—tr. by Wen Fong.

1 colophon by Tieh Ping-tzu, written in 1927,

The Cleveland Museum of Art, J, H. Wade
Collection. , "u 'Vi

i lly ••'♦VVr-r

TU CHIN, act. ca. 1465-1487, Hopei
(Peking) -Kiangsu

42. WANDERING IN THE MOON¬
LIGHT, il. p. 66.

Hanging scroll; ink and slight color on paper;
H. Sls/g"; W. 281/z" Signed and sealed; the seal

148

is the one from which the reference in C & W.,
p. 158, is taken. One old unidentified seal; 1 seal
of Chang Tsung-yu (20th c.); 1 seal of C. C. Wang
(20th c.). Publ: A Special Collection of the Sec¬
ond National Exhibition of Chinese Art under
the Auspices of the Ministry of Education , Part
I, Commercial Press, 1943, pi. 138 (Chang Coll.)
The Cleveland Museum of Art, John L. Severance
Collection.

SHIH CHUNG, 1437-1517, Kiangsu
(Nanking)

43. WINTER LANDSCAPE, il. p. 67.

Handscroll; ink on paper; L. 994"; H. 5i/£".
Dated 1504; poem by the artist:

The sky is clear; snow covers mountain and
river.

The Myriad Trees tower high; this is nature’s
work.

Alone and always happy to suffer poverty,
This old man, moved to tears, records the
divine pine.

In the spring of the chia-tzu year, during
The reign of Hung Chin (1504), when snow fell
heavily. The Fool made this picture and
added the poem to accompany it.

Shih Chung
— Tr. by K. Tomita
2 seals of the artist, C & W., p. 83, no. 10, 1 un¬
recorded. 1 seal of Pang Yuan-ch’i (contemporary
collector). Publ: K. Tomita, “Snowscape by Shih
Chung,” Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts,
April, 1940, pp. 30-33.

Lent by Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

KUO HSU (Ch’ing-k’uang), 1456-after
1526, Kiangsi

44. LANDSCAPE: PAVILIONS AND
WATER, il. p. 68.

Handscroll; ink on paper; L. 62"; H. 8i/£". Two
paintings, mounted together, signed:

Written and painted by Ch’ing-k'uang with
running brush.

5 seals of the artist, C & W., p. 318, nos. 2, 3; 1
unrecorded. Ex.Coll: P’ang Yuan-ch’i, Shanghai.
Lent by The Detroit Institute of Arts.

ATTRIBUTED TO CHOU CH’EN, act.
ca. 1532, Kiangsu (Suchou)

45. PINES AND TOWERING MOUN¬
TAINS, il. p. 69.

Album painting; ink and slight color on very
finely woven silk; H. 9%"; W. 8%". The
Cleveland Museum of Art, John L. Severance
Collection.

TANG YIN, 1470-1524, Kiangsu (Suchou)

46. STRANGE PEAKS AND A SCHOL¬
AR’S HIDDEN RETREAT, il. p. 70.

Hanging scroll; ink and slight color on darkened
silk; H. 53i/£"; W. 24%". Colophon and seals of
the artist.

Lent by The John Herron Art Museum, Indianapo¬
lis.

47. SCHOLAR IN A SUMMER LAND¬
SCAPE, il. p. 70.

Hanging scroll; ink and slight color on satin-
silk; H. 5$i/2 "; W. 2194". Seven character line
poem by the artist for an unidentified person
(perhaps Sung Ch’eng-ch’i); 3 artist’s seals (C &
W., p. 226, nos. 11, 10, 15); 10 seals of Hsiang
Yuan-pien (1525-1590); at least 3 seals of Li
Tsung-wan (1705-1759), C & W., p. 621; 1 seal
of C. C. Wang (20th c.). 5 unidentified seals.

Lent by Frank Caro, successor to C. T. Loo, New
York.

48. LANDSCAPE WITH MEDITAT¬
ING SCHOLAR, il. p. 72.

Handscroll; ink on paper; L. 33 H. 10%e".
No inscription on the painting; 2 seals of the
artist and 1 unidentified seal. Colophon signed
T’ang Yin after the painting, with 2 seals of the
artist and 1 unidentified seal as on the painting.
Lent by The Bamboo Studio, New York.

SHEN CHOU (Shih-t’ien), 1427-1509,
Kiangsu (Suchou)

49. ALBUM OF LANDSCAPES AND
POEMS, il. p. 74.

Album paintings; ink on paper; H. 14%"; W.
2594"- Each of the eight leaves is signed and
sealed by the artist (similar to C & W., p. 167, no.
15). Ex. Coll: Wen Cheng-ming (1470-1559); Wen
Chia (1500-1582); Teng Ju-kao; Lu Hsin-yuan (?)
1834-1894; Lu Shu-sheng; Tuan Fang. Publ: Bibl.
73.

Lent by Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

50. TRAVELING IN WU, il. p. 75.

Handscroll; ink on paper; L. 65"; H. 12i4". In¬
scription:

I did this painting. Yuch Ch’uang does not
find fault with its easy quality, but says it
has the flavor of Tung Yuan and Chu Jan.
Yueh Ch’uang has big eyes; most people
believe what he says. But I myself just can’t
understand it.

Dated 1474, signed Shen Chou.

— tr. by R. Edwards.
4 seals of the artist, 3 rather faded (C & W., p.
167, nos. 3, 20), 1 unrecorded. Colophon signed by
Shen Chou’s friend, Wu K’uan, the first and
larger part of which appears to be replaced. At
the end it relates that when Yueh Ch’uang went
South this painting was given to him. The pic¬
ture is like traveling in Wu. 2 seals of Wu K’uan.
20 other seals; at least 5 are those of Li Chao-hang
(17th c.); 3 seals of An Ch’i (1683-after 1742);
2 seals of Ch’en K'uei-lin (late 19th c.). Rec:
Ch’en’s catalog, Pao Yu Ko Shu Hua Lu, Shanghai.
Lent by The Bamboo Studio, New York.

51. FOUR SCENES AT TIGER HILL
(?), il. p. 76.

Album paintings; ink on paper; H. 12i4"; W.
1594"; possibly Tiger Hill, see 67 where the cov-

149

ered bridge is to be seen. Each leaf with 1 seal
of the artist {C Sc W*, p* 167, no* 3):

1. Chasm with Pavilion and Three Figures

2. The Seven Poets (?) on Rocky Ledges

3. A Street with Two Figures

4. Oaks and Hummocks with Three Figures at
a WelL

Lent by Richard B, Hobart, Cambridge, Massa¬
chusetts,

52. LANDSCAPE IN THE STYLE OF
NI TSAN, il. p. 55.

Hanging scroll; ink on paper; H. 54y£*: W*
244"* Poem, signature, and 1 seal of the artist
(C Sc W., p, 167, no. 24), dated in the 20th year
of Ming Cheng Hua (1484), a Winter day. Ex, Coll:
T. Yamamoto, Rec: Chokaido Shoga Mokuroku ,
1932, 11/99.

Lent by Nelson Gallery of Art and Atkins Mliseum,
Kansas City, Missouri.

53. LANDSCAPES WITH POEMS, iL
p* 78*

Album paintings mounted as a hand sc roll; ink
on paper and ink with color on paper; H. 15 4*';
W. 23^4". 2 seals of the artist (C & W„ p, 167, nos.
3, 20). 2 colophons: 1 by Wen Cheng- ming, dated
1516; 1 by Hsieh Lan-sheng, dated 1824, Each leaf
with poem and signature of the artist:

L Three Gardeners in Fenced Enclosure (with
slight color)

2. The Artist-Poet on a Mountain (with color)

3. The Painter with His Grane in a Boat (with
color)

4. Mountain Lake with Boats (ink only)

5. Mountain Trail with Village Grove and a
Stream (ink only),

Rec: P'ang Cheng-wei, T'ing Fan Lou Shu Hua
Chi (Mei Shu Tsung Shu edition), supplement,
2nd part, la-2b, 1843 or later. Publ: L, Sick man,
’'The Unsung Ming,” Art News, November, 1946*
See 53a for leaf no. 6 by Wen Cheng- ming.

Lent by Nelson Gallery of Art and Atkins Museum,
Kansas City* Missouri*

WEN CHENG-MING (Wen Pi), 1470-
1559, Kiangsu (Suchou)

53a. STORM OVER A LAKE, il. p. 80.

Album painting; ink and slight color on paper;
H, 1514"; W. 23<4". Dated 1516: 2 seals of the
artist (C & W*, p. 19, nos. 3, 6). 2 colophons (see
53), The picture illustrates two lines of Wei
Ying-wu's T'ang Dynasty poem:

On the spring flood of last night’s rain
The ferry boat moves as if someone were
poling.

— tr. Wytter Bynner
Lent by Nelson Gallery of Art and Atkins Museum,
Kansas City, Missouri,

54. LANDSCAPE WITH A WATER¬
FALL, il. p. 79*

Hanging scroll; ink wash and color on paper;
H* 21 $4"; W, 9^"- 1 colophon and 2 seals of
the artist (similar to C & W*, p* 19, nos* 10-20;
2nd seal is double):

I was alone in my house, there were no
guests, no friends, because it was raining. So
I took up my brush and painted the trees
and the waterfall. Dated in accordance with

1531, 7th month, 24th day*

5 seals of Emperor Chlen Lung. 3 unidentified
seals. Publ: Afortra di Pilture Cinese Ming e
Ch’ing, Rome, April, 1950*

Lent by Frank Caro, successor to C. T. Loo, New
York.

55. SEVEN JUNIPER TREES, il. p. 81.

Handscroll; ink on paper; L. IP lO^"; H. 114"«
Signed and dated:

1532, Summer, Cheng-ming used Sung-hsueh's
(Chao Meng-fu's) brush. (See 26)

Colophon by the artist is given in large part on
p. 81; 2 seals of the artist (similar to C k W., p.
19, nos. 20, 30). Colophon dated 1538, by Gh'en
Shun (see 63) with 2 seals:

In the Spring of 1532, Mr. Wang Shih-men
came from Hai-yu (i.e., where the ancient
junipers were standing), visited me at the
Lake, stayed over night and left, 1538, in
Autumn, Mr. Wang again visited me. He
showed me the scroll with the Seven Junipers
of my teacher, Master Heng-shan. He told me
that after he had seen me last time, he visited
Master Heng and begged him to let him
have the scroll. And now he wants from me
a few words of comment. I carefully studied
the scroll and could not leave my hand from
it. This is indeed my teacher's masterpiece*
In his lines and washes, delicate and lush,
he attained the essence of Chao Meng-fu's
genius. Such a painting is not easily given
away, Mr, Wang was certainly not afraid to
ask and was lucky enough to get it. If it had
not been for Mr, Wang’s appearance and his
personal culture, so appealing to the Master's
taste, how could he have given it to him. So
much the more Shih-men should treasure it I
Tao-fu inscribed
— tr* by Gustav Ecke

3 collectors' seals.

Lent by Honolulu Academy of Arts.

56. CYPRESS AND OLD ROCKS, il*
p. 84.

Handscroll; ink on paper; L. 19^ W. 10*4
Inscription, signature, and 1 seal of the artist
(similar to C & W., p. 19, no* 40). 12 colophons
including: Wang Ku-hsiang, painter and poet,
1501-1568; Chou T*ien-ch*iu, calligrapher and
painter, 1514-1595; Lu Shih-ta, painter and pupil
of Wen Cheng-ming, act. ca, 1522-1566; Yuan
Tsun-ni, 1523-1574; Huang Chi-sui, calligrapher,
1509-1574; Yuan Chung, poet, contemporary of
Wen Cheng-ming; Lu An-tao, calligrapher, brother
of Lu Shih-ta; Wen P’eng, eldest son of the aTtist,
1498-1573: Wen Chia, second son of the artist
and himself a painter of note, 1501-1566; P'eng
Nien. calligrapher, 1505-1566, colophon dated in
the 29th year of Ming Chia Ching (1550) (This
is the last colophon written at the time the pic¬
ture was painted); Chang Feng-i, poet and calli¬
grapher (His colophon, written in 1612, mentions

150

that the picture was painted for him and pre¬
sented when he was 23 years old). Ex. Coll: Chang
Feng-i, 1527-1613; Liu Shu, 1759-1816; Ku Wen-
pin, 181 1-1889.

Lent by Nelson Gallery of Art and Atkins Museum,
Kansas City, Missouri.

WEN PO-JEN, 1502-1575, Kiangsu
57, LANDSCAPE, il. p. 85.

Hanging scroll; Ink and color on paper; H.
50!j4"; W. I4i4" Signed and dated 1561; 2 artists'
seals (I in C & W., p. 10, no. 14). 5 unidentified
seals. Ex.Coll: Emperors Ch’ien Lung (4 seals);
Ghia Ch'ing (1 seal); T. Yamamoto, Tokyo,

Lent by Seattle Art Museum, Eugene Fuller Me¬
morial Collection.

58* THE LUTE SONG; SAYING FARE¬
WELL AT HSUN-YANG, il. p. 84.

Hand scroll; ink and slight color on paper;
L. 23^"; W. 8i/@". Inscription signed by the
artist: painted at Ting Yun-kuang, 2 seals of the
artist (similar to C & W., p. 10, nos. 5, 6). 10
collectors' seals on painting and colophons; the
1st colophon is a transcription of the Lute Song
(Pi-p’a fusing) by Po Chud (772-846) from which
the title is taken. See A. Waley The Life and Times
of Po Chu-i, London, 1949, p, 117. Ex. Coll: T.
Yamamoto, Tokyo. Puhl: Chokaido Shoga Mok -
uroku, 1932, 111/94. (Cat. of Yamamoto Coll.) The
Cleveland Museum of Art, John L, Severance
Collection.

CHLJ CHIEH, act. ca. 1574, Kiangsu
59* WATCHING THE STREAM, il.

p. 86,

Hanging scroll; ink on paper; H. 43 1/£"; W.
9?/b ", Inscription and i seal of the artist (C Sc W.,
p. 188, no. 4):

In the i-wei year of the Chia-ching reign
(1559) on a day of the Little Cold season
{approximately January 6-20) Hsuan-chin
dropped by to pay a call and produced this
paper, pressing me for a painting by my
clumsy brush. At that time I had been ill and
had long neglected brush and Ink-stone. In
a disorderly way I daubed and rubbed; surely
one must find it awful. May Hsuan-chin not
be offended with my soiling his beautiful
paper.

Inscribed by Chu Chieh

— tr, by A, Lippe
2 seals of Liang Ch'ing-piao (1620-1691), 6 seals
of the Ch'ien Lung Emperor including an Im¬
perial gift seal. Publ: Bibl. 36.

Lent by The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
York.

LU CHIH (Pao-shan), 1496-1576, Kiangsu
(Suchou)

60* ROCKY LANDSCAPE, il. p. 88,

Hand scroll; ink and color on paper; L. 44^4";
H. 9i4". Inscribed and signed by the artist:

Painted by Pao-shan Lu Chih, at the end of
the full moon in March, the chi-yu year of
Chia Ching (1549),

Seal of the artist (C & W., p. 343, no. 5) at the
beginning and at the end of scroll; poem by the
artist on the 1st colophon. First commentary
colophon by Tung ChTch'ang, 1632. Publ: Bibi.
16,

Lent by Nelson Gallery of Art and Atkins Museum,
Kansas City, Missouri.

61. LANDSCAPE WITH CLEAR DIS¬
TANCE, il. p. 85,

Hanging scroll; ink and color on paper; H.
41s4"; W. Poem by the artist and 3 artiste

seals (C & W„ p. m, nos. 3, 10, 18). 5 seals of
Hsiang Yuan-pien (1525-1590); 1 unidentified seal.
Lent by The Art Institute of Chicago.

62* LANDSCAPE WITH FLOWERING
TREES, not IL

Fan painting; ink and color on gold paper; L
2T'; H. 75/g", Inscribed after a 7 character line poem:

Lu Chih presented to Mr. Ssu Yell
A double seal of the artist, Shu -ping (similar to
C k W., p. 343* no. 1), 1 collector's seal of P'ang
Cheng-wei (19th c.). Publ: Kokka 731, Dec., 1953.
Ex.Coll: T. Tomioka.

Lent by Howard Hollis and Company, Cleveland.

CH’EN SHUN (Tao-fu), 1483-1544,
Kiangsu (Suchou)

63* PAVILION OF EIGHT POEMS, II.
p, 90,

Handscroll; ink on paper; L. 48"; H. 10".
4 seals of the artist (C & W., p. 327, nos. 3, 1)
and signature:

Written and signed by Ch’en Tao-fu in my
country house, on the 16th day of the 5th
month in the year Wu Hsueh (1538).

4 collectors’ seals, including those of P'ang Yuan-
ch'i (20th c.).

Lent by The Art Institute of Chicago.

64. LANDSCAPE AND POEMS, il, p. 91.

Handscroll: ink and slight color on paper:
Signature and 2 seals of the artist (1 similar to
C & W., p. 327, no. 3); 3 poems by the artist,
signed, Ex.Coll: Lo Chen-yu, scholar, archaeologist,
and writer (1866-1940).

Lent by Nelson Gallery of Art and Atkins Museum,
Kansas' City, Missouri.

65. RIVER LANDSCAPE, il. p. 87.

Handscroll; ink and slight color on paper;
L, 24' 7j4"; H. 12/4". Inscription and signature of
the artist, 2 artist's seals (1 similar to C & W., p.
327, no. 2). Publ: Alan Priest, 4t River — for an
Elder Brother," Bulletin of The Metropolitan
Museum of Artf March, 1947,

Lent by The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
York.

151

CHOU YUNG, 1476-1547, Kiangsu
(Suchou)

66. WINTER MOUNTAINS AND
LONELY TEMPLE, AFTER LI T’ANG,
il. p. 92.

Handscroll; ink on paper; L. 61%"; H. 1134".
Inscription and signature of the artist:

In 1548 of the Chia Ching period, in the
autumn during chrysanthemum time, painted
at “Love the Sun Hall," signed, Chou Yung
of Sungling.

2 artist’s seals. 2 colophons, the 2nd by Shen
Shih (Ch'ing-men), a painter of the 16th c. Publ:
Bibl. 53, vol. 15, pi. 17.

Lent by The Toledo Museum of Art.

HSIEH SHIH-CH’EN, 1487-after 1559,
Kiangsu (Suchou)

67. TIGER HILL, SUCHOU (?), il.
p. 92.

Handscroll; ink and color on paper; L. 81%";
H. 7%". Signed and dated, Fall, 1536; 2 artist's
seals (1 unrecorded, 1 similar to C & W., p. 398,
no. 4). 3 colophons with 4 seals, 1 colophon by
Wu Hu-fan, the 20th c. collector, tentatively
identifies the subject as Tiger Hill.

Lent by Walter Hochstadter, New York.

TUNG CH’I-CH’ANG, 1555-1636, Kiangsu
(Sung-chiang)

68. LANDSCAPE IN THE STYLE OF
CHANG SENG- YU, il. p. 94.

Hanging scroll; ink and color on satin; H. 30";
W. 13%". Inscription and signature of the artist
with 2 seals.

Lent by Mrs. Brenda Seligman, London.

69. LANDSCAPE, il. p. 94.

Hanging scroll; ink and color on silk; H. 56%";
W. 23%". Inscription and signature of the artist
with 2 seals. Publ: Ausstellung Chinesische Malerei
der letzen vier Jahrhunderte , Hamburg, 1949-50,
no. 51.

Lent by Nu Wa Chai.

CH’EN CHI-JU, 1558-1639, Kiangsu

70. EARLY SNOW, not il.

Handscroll; ink on paper; L. 47%"; H. 10%".
Poem and signature of the artist; 2 seals of the
artist. Ex. Coll: Hayashi, Gojo.

Lent by Seattle Art Museum, Eugene Fuller Me¬
morial Collection.

LI LIU-FANG, 1575-1629, Anhui-Kiangsu

71. THIN FOREST AND DISTANT
MOUNTAINS, il p. 96.

Hanging scroll; ink on paper; H. 45"; W. 15%".
Signed, 2 seals of the artist (C & W., p. 151, nos.
11, 15):

Sparse forest and distant mountains have
always attracted me.

We have inherited the brush tradition of
Ni Tsan;

In the South of the City, there lives a quiet
man,

Who paints the spring breeze in a section
of a stream.

— tr. by Wen Fong
Publ: Bibl. 26, p. 674. The Cleveland Museum of
Art, John L. Severance Collection.

SHENG MAO-YEH (Mao-hua), act. ca.
1634, Kiangsu (Suchou)

72. LONELY RETREAT BENEATH
TALL TREES, il. p. 97.

Hanging scroll; ink and slight color on silk;
H. 71"; W. 36%". Inscription and 2 seals of the
artist (C & W., p. 369, nos. 1, 3); dated 1630,
“Small spring” (10th month). 3 seals at lower
left of Liu Shu (1759-1816), C & W., p. 617, nos.
15, 31, 23.

Lent by Walter Hochstadter, New York.

CH’ENG CHENG-KUEI, act. ca. 1630-50,
Kiangsu-Hupei

73. MOUNTAINOUS LANDSCAPE, il.
p. 99.

Handscroll; ink on paper; L. 9' 3"; H. 7%".
Dated 1646. Colophon by Wang Ch’en.

Lent by The Art Institute of Chicago.

74. WALKING IN A MOUNTAIN AND
WATER LANDSCAPE, not il.

Handscroll; ink and color on paper; L. 80%";
H. 8i%s". Beginning inscription and 1 seal by
the artist; ending signature and 2 seals of the
artist (C & W., p. 370, nos. 5, 8, 9); dated 1674.
One collector’s seal on painting; 1 colophon with
2 seals.

Lent by Walter Hochstadter, New York.

LAN YING, 1585-after 1657, Chekiang
(Hangchou)

75. RIVER LANDSCAPE IN THE
STYLE OF FOUR EARLY MASTERS,
il. p. 100.

Handscroll; ink and color on gold-flecked paper;
L. 21'; H. 10%". Artist’s inscription:

If Chi-ho, my senior in literary pursuits, is
not occupied in his research of the Six Classics,
he is absorbed in the study of the Six Can¬
ons, which forms the background of the
art of painting and calligraphy. Once when
I returned from a trip to Pei-yueh mountains,
Chi-ho came to my house. As the rainy season
started then, he was unable to leave for his
home. While he was spending quiet days
with me, he produced this paper and asked
me to paint in the different manners of the
four masters, Tung Yuan, Huang Kung-wang,

152

Wang Meng, and Wu Chen. In ten days I
completed this picture. Now I beg Chi -ho to
correct my imperfections. The work is un¬
worthy to be placed before such a learned
friend.

Done in the year of Chia-tzu (1624).

5 collectors' seals; 6 I9th-c. colophons. Ex.Goll:
M. Rato, Tokyo. Publ: Bibl. 57, vol. 2; 26, p. 705
(complete).

Lent by Seattle Art Museum, Eugene Fuller Me¬
morial Collection.

76. OLD TREES BY THE WATER, il.
p. 97.

Hanging scroll; ink and color on paper; H.
50^4"; W. 151/5". Inscription and 2 seals of the
artist (G Sc W., p. 490r nos. 10, 5 [similar]); dated
1652.

Lent by Eli Lilly, Indianapolis.

TING YUN-FENG, act ca. 1584-1618,
Anhui

77. THE LUTE SONG: SAYING FARE¬
WELL AT HSUN-YANGj il, p, 101,

Hanging scroll; ink and color on paper; H,
55^/5"; W. 18i/5", Signature and 2 seals of the
artist (C Sc W,f p. 1, nos, 5, 6); dated 1585. The
picture illustrates the Lute Song of Po Chu-i (see
58) written above the painting, with 2 seals, 1
collector's seal on painting.

Lent by The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
York.

WANG CHIEN -CHI ANG, act. ca. 1644,
Fukien

78. SPRING COMES TO A CLIFF
OVER THE RIVER, not il.

Handscroll; ink and color on gold paper; L.
3 8 14 "; H. 7^1 a". Title and signature of the
artist with 2 seals. Ex. Coll: Kuwana, Kyoto,

Lent by Seattle Art Museum, Gift of Mrs, John C.
Attwood, Jr.

KU I-TEH, died 1685

79. ENJOYING THE MOON FROM
THE BRIDGE OVER THE BROOK, il.

p. 101.

Hanging scroll; ink and color on paper; H,
60S/J"; W. 19l£". Inscription of the artist with 2
seals; dated 1628; copied “after Wang Meng** (see
30). Colophon by Tung Gh'i-ch'ang with 2 seals;
2 seals of Liang Chhng-piao (162G-1691), Publ:
Bibl 34.

Lent by The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
York.

WEI CHIH-KO, act. ca. 1620, Hopci-
Nanking

80. THOUSAND HILLS RIVALING IN
BEAUTY TEN THOUSAND STREAMS
COMPETING IN SPEED, not il.

Handscroll; color on paper; L. 270i^"; H,
7iHflJ*- Inscription of the artist:

Painted on the first day of the second month
of the year Chia Tsu (1624) of the reign of
T'ien Chi (1621-1627) by Wei Chih-ko from
Chulu.

2 seals of the artist.

Lent by The Toledo Museum of Art,

YUN HSIANG (Tao-sheng), 1586-1655,
Kiangsu

81, LANDSCAPE AFTER NI TSAN,
not il.

Folding fan; ink on coated paper; L, 201/5";
H. 6 1/5". Inscription with 2 seals of the artist (C
& W., p. 355, nos, 1, 2). Ex.Coll; T. Tomioka,
Lent by Howard Hollis and Company, Cleveland.

CHANG HUNG, 1580-ca. 1660, Kiangsu
{Suchou}

82, VIEWS OF THE CHIH GARDEN
IN SUCHOU, not il

Album painting; ink and color on paper; H,
1234"; W. 1334"- Inscription of the artist on first
leaf;

Chih Yuan T’u (Views of the Chih Garden),
Inscription of the artist on last leaf:

T'ien Chi Ting Mao (1627) painted for Hui
Ghih (by) Wumen (Suchou) Chang Hung.

2 seals of the artist on each page (C & W., p, 275,
nos. 1, 2).

Lent by Walter Hochstadter, New York.

WANG CHIEN, 1598-1677, Kiangsu

83, CLOUDS, VALLEYS AND THE
SHADOW OF PINES, il, p. 103,

Hanging scroll; ink on paper; H. 3434": W.
1434"* Inscription of the artist:

Imitation of Wang Meng, Clouds and Valleys
and the Shadow of Pines in the I Ya Ko,
dated Spring, 4th month, 1660, signed Wang
Chien.

I seal of the artist, 1 seal of Pi Lung (18c.), C &
W,, p. 601; 1 unidentified seal.

Lent by The Bamboo Studio, New York,

WANG HUI, 1632-1717, Kiangsu

84, BAMBOO GROVE AND DISTANT
MOUNTAINS, il. p. 103.

Hanging scroll; ink on paper; H. 31^";
W, 151/5" Inscription and 2 seals of the artist
(C k W„ p. 67, nos. 25, 54):

In the old days. Wen Hu-ehou (Wen T'ung,
d. 1079) painted a scroll called *‘A Horizontal
View of Sung Ssu Lin in the Evening Mist/'
The strength of its brush is not interior to
Kuo Hsi; and the bamboos between the
trees and rocks are beyond the usual criteria of
brush and ink since they are the direct over¬
flow of the artist's feelings. Wen’s descendant
Mr. Wen Kuang-wen has asked me for a
painting of lean bamboos and distant raoun-

153

tains. It is a pity that my brush cannot be
compared with Kuo (Hsi), nor is it anywhere
near that of Hu-chou. These few traces of
rough brush can only be taken as an ex¬
pression of a moment’s interest painted for
gratifying Mr. Wen Kuang-wen’s graciousness.
— Huang-hao-Shan-Chung-jen, Wang Meng
(d. 1385)

Chia Hsu (1694), ninth month, copied for
Master Ni-weng at Chang-an, Wang Hui
— tr. by Wen Fong
Ex.Coll: P’ang Yuan-ch’i (20th c.). Publ: Master -
pieces of Chinese Painting: Collection of P’ang
Shu-chai, Shanghai, 1940, vol. Ill, no. 11, as
“Distant Ravines and Long Bamboos.” The Cleve¬
land Museum of Art, John L. Severance Collection.

WANG YUAN-CH’I, 1642-1715, Kiangsu

85. MOUNTAIN AND RIVER LAND¬
SCAPE, il. p. 105.

p. 101.

Hanging scroll; ink on paper; H. 4' 4i/6";
W. 231/6". Signed and dated 1701; after the style
of Huang Kung-wang of the Yuan Dynasty; 3
seals of the artist (C & W., p. 40, nos. 55, 37, 41).
1 unidentified collector’s seal.

Lent by The Art Institute of Chicago.

86. LANDSCAPE AFTER NI TSAN, il.

p. 106.

Hanging scroll; ink and color on paper; H.
31 $4"; W. 17i/6". Inscription and 4 seals of the
artist (C & W., p. 40, nos. 37, 39, 63):

Painted after attending the Emperor and
returning by boat (a common practice).
Painted in color after Ni Tsan, 4th month,
1707. Signed Lu-t’ai.

Ex.Coll: P’ang Yuan-ch’i, Shanghai, 1 seal. Publ:
Masterpieces of Chinese Painting: Collection of
P’ang Shu-chai, Shanghai, 1940, vol. 1, no. 14. The
Cleveland Museum of Art, John L. Severance
Collection.

HUANG TING, 1660-1730, Kiangsu

87. MOUNTAIN IN FALL, AFTER
WANG MENG, il. p. 108.

Hanging scroll; ink and slight color on paper;
H. 63^"; W. 26". 2 seals of the artist and
inscription:

1697, summer, painted after Wang Shu-ming’s
“Mountain in Fall” in the studio named
Ch’in-yun-shu-wu, by Huang Ting of Yu-shan.
4 colophons with 8 seals; 2 collectors’ seals.

Lent by Honolulu Academy of Arts.

CHANG TSUNG-TS’ANG, 1686-1756,
Kiangsu (Suchou)

88. LANDSCAPE, il. p. 109.

Hanging scroll; ink and color on paper; H.
16%"; W. 123/6". 2 seals of the artist (“respect¬
fully” and “paint”) and inscription:

Your minister Chang Tsung-ts’ang has re¬
spectfully painted.

Poem by Ch’icn Lung Emperor dated Fall, 1768;
8 seals of Ch’ien Lung; 1 seal of Chia Ch’ing.
Ex.Coll: T. Tomioka. Publ: Naito, Shina Kaigashi,
opp. p. 170.

Lent by Howard Hollis and Company, Cleveland.

YUAN CHIANG, act. ca. 1743, Kiangsu

89. CARTS ON A WINDING MOUN¬
TAIN ROAD, il. p. 110.

Hanging scroll; ink and color on silk; H. 71i/6";
W. 363/6". Signature and 2 seals of the artist (C
& W., p. 250, nos. 4, 5); dated 1754.

Lent by Nelson Gallery of Art and Atkins Museum,
Kansas City, Missouri.

WU LI, 1632-1718, Kiangsu (Shanghai)

90. RECITING POETRY BEFORE
THE YELLOWING OF AUTUMN,
il. p. 111.

Hanging scroll; ink on paper; H. 53^4"; W. 25".
2 artist’s seals (C & W, p. 131, nos. 3, 12) and
inscription signed:

The Yu-shan disciple (follower), Wu Li.

The poem and the painting were executed as a
present to “the old man of T’ai-yuan, Chiao Cheng.
1 collector’s seal.

Lent by The Bamboo Studio, New York.

91. MYRIAD VALLEYS AND THE
FLAVOR OF PINES, il. p. 113.

Hanging scroll; ink and color on paper; H.
43i/4"; W. 10-%6"‘ Title: “Wan Tsu Sung Feng
T’u” (see above) written by the artist. Signed Mo
Cheng Tao Jen with 1 of the artist’s seals; 1
seal of the artist at lower right (C & W., p. 131,
nos. 2, 17). Five unidentified seals, possibly one
of these at lower left belongs to Po Er-tu, ca. 1700.
At one time the painting had 5 Imperial Ch’ien
Lung seals (?), since removed. The Cleveland
Museum of Art, John L. Severance Collection.

YUN SHOU-P’ING (Cheng-shu), 1633-
1690, Kiangsu

92. SONG OF THE LILY FLOWERS
AND CYPRESS LEAVES, il. p. 114.

Hanging scroll; ink and color on paper; H.
54 j4"; W. 263/6". Poem (see title) and 2 seals of
the artist (C Sc W, p. 356, nos. 46, 45); dated 1676,
summer solstice. 1 unidentified collector’s seal.
Lent by Walter Hochstadter, New York.

K’UN TS’AN (Shih-ch’i), act. ca. 1665,
Hunan-Nanking

93. RETREAT FROM SUMMER
HEAT, il. p. 117.

Hanging scroll; ink and color on paper; H.
433/6"; W. 143/6". Poem and signature of the
artist, Shih-ch’i-tsan-tao-cha; 3 seals of the artist
(C Sc W., p. 392, nos. 11, 9). 1 unidentified seal.
Ex. Coll: P’ang Yuan-sh’i (1 seal). Rec: Hsu Chai
Ming Hua Lu X/16, under Shih-ch'i (P’ang Yuan-
ch’i catalog). Publ: Masterpieces of Chinese Paint -

154

ing: Collection of P'mg Shu-chai, Shanghai, 1940,
vol. II, no. 12.

Lent by Walter Hochstadter* New York.

TAO-CHI (Shih-t’aoJj before 1645-after
1704, Honan

94. MIN RIVER LANDSCAPE, il* p*
118.

Hanging scroll; ink and slight color on paper;
H. 153/6"; W. 20%fl"f Poem by the artist, slightly
garbled and incomplete* recorded in: Colophons
of Chfing-hsiang4ao*ien by Wang Men-shan (18th
c.); Chronology of Shih-t’ao Shang-jen by Fu Pao-
shih* Shanghai* 1948* The poem reads:

Under the Yangtzu Bridge, where the river
overflows,

The willow- tendrils show forth their hue, in¬
sensitive to man's grey hair*1 2 3 *

Throughout Spring, rain and snow have kept
awray the scenery lovers;

Yet throughout Ch 'ing- Ming season* the plum-
blossoms will preserve and flourish*®

Aging and being useless, I have grown
attached to my friends;

But year after year, my friends have di¬
minished like stars and sea-gulls.

Suddenly Master Wang turns to me with an
astonishing statement of his mind,

I will therefore here give him my observation
of the Min River*"

Please leave me aside now and look at my
painting*

Before your eyes* you will see hills and valleys
in one sweep*

Thousands and ten-thousands of miles are
shown at the tip of my brush;

They are not ink* nor mist, but a rather pre¬
sumptuous message;

Your respected father is a great man of a
hundred eras,

One word of his spoken to the Emperor could
result in storm and thunder*

The Emperor has bestowed on him much ex¬
traordinary kindness;

And he is now coming south with the wishes
of the palace.

(Would he remember) how much poverty is
awaiting him for relief?

The poor will count on his efforts as the
Imperial mediator*

Ting Ch'ou (1697)* Spring, write the colo¬
phon on the painting to give it to Master
Wang Mu-t7ing, who is to leave for Min -hah
also presenting a thought to his excellency*
the Imperial Emissary Po-hsueh, (signed)
Ch’ing-hsiang-lao-jen, Chi* at Ta-ti-T’ang.

— tr. by Wen Fong

1* Willow- leaves swing with the wind* therefore
are taken as symbol of lack of integrity and will¬
fulness. Here* they are used to hint at the
yielding subjects of the Manchu overlords*

2. The pium- blossom, the national flower of
Republican China* is traditionally the symbol of
purity* faithfulness* and grace.

3, Min River is in the modern province of

Fukien.

1 seal of the artist following the inscription. 2
unidentified seals* The Cleveland Museum of Art*
John L. Severance Collection.

95. LANDSCAPE ALBUM WITH
SCENES OF TRAVEL, iL p* 120.

Album paintings (7); ink and color on paper;
H. 8"; W, 131/J". Seven leaves of originally over
thirty. They were painted for Huang Yen-lu who
apparently composed or selected the accompanying
poems written by the artist with additional com¬
ment, signature, and seals (C & W* p. 425, nos* 4*
5, 9* 13, 16). The original leaves as a group are
reported to be recorded in Pi Hsiao Hsien Shu

Hua Lu * a record book of the K'ang Hsi reign.

Additional colophons were added in 1790 by
Wang Wen-chih.

Lent by Richard B. Hobart* Cambridge* Massachu¬
setts*

96. LANDSCAPE ALBUM WITH
POEMS AND ESSAYS, il. p. 1 17.

2 album paintings; ink and color on paper

(leaf no* 9)* ink on paper (leaf no. 12); H. lSs/J";
W. 12%o". Inscriptions and seals of the artist

(C & W* p. 425, nos. 9, 14, 16).

Leaf no. 9* H'Retreat under a Cliff:17

Before the ancients established the models,
we know not what kind of model they fol¬
lowed* Once the ancients had established the
models, the later people let themselves be¬
come the slaves of the ancient models. Then
for hundreds and thousands of years the
later people have been unable to rise above
the ordinary* Because they try to imitate the
footmarks* rather than the spirit of the
ancients, they can never rise above the
ordinary* It is indeed sad*

Leaf no. 12, "Mountain Path:”

The way (of painting) requires penetration.
By means of free brushwork in sweeping
manner the thousand peaks and the ten
thousand valleys may be seen at a glance.
As one looks at (the painting) fearsome
lightning and driving cloud seem to come
from it. With which (of these great names)
Ching or Kuan* Tung or Chu* Ni or Huang,
Shen or Chao, could such a picture be asso¬
ciated? I have seen works of very famous
masters* but they all follow certain models
or certain schools. How can I explain that
in both writing and painting nature endows
each individual with peculiarity and each
generation with its own responsibility?
Ta-ti-tzu (Tao-chi) presents this to Hsiao-
weng that he may laugh at my work* In
the second month of the year of kuei-wet
(corresponding to 1703) at Ch 'ing- lien -ts'ao
Pavilion*

Ex.Coll: Ma Yueh-lu (1 8th c.); Ch’en Teh-yeh and
Wang Chi-chuan (20th c.) Pub!: Bihl* 74, from
which translations arc taken*

Lent by Museum of Fine Arts* Boston*

97. LANDSCAPE ALBUM, il* p. 117*

Album paintings; ink and light color on paper;
H, 91/2": W. 11"* Signed: Ku-kua-ho-shang* Ch'i;
2 seals of the artist (C Sc W* p* 425, nos. 2* 3).

155

PubI: Bibl. 11, where 4 other leaves are re¬
produced; Ausstellung Chinesische Malerei 15-20 ,
Jahrhundertj Kunstsammlungen der Stadt Dussel-
dorf* 1950, No, 100.

Lent by Nu Wa Chai.

CHU TA (Pa-ta-shan-jen), 1626-ca. 1705,
Kiangsu

98. LANDSCAPE AFTER KUO
CHUNG-SHU, il. p. 124,

Hanging scroll; ink on paper; H. 43j4"; W.
22%^w. Inscription of the artist, signed Pa-ta-shan-
jen; 3 artist’s seals (C & W, p. 106, nos. 1, 6P 12),

3 collectors' seals at lower right: Huang (?);

4 seals of Chang Tachiert (20th c.).

Lent by Walter Hochstadter, New York,

99. LANDSCAPE, il p. 125,

Hanging scroll; ink and color on paper; H.
69^4"; W. 36^4". Signed Pa-ta-shan-jen; 3 seals
of the artist (C & W, p. 106, nos. 14, 15, 16). Puhl:
Chinesische Gemalde der Ming-und Ch'ing'teitj
Greven Verlag Koln, 1950; Ausstellung Chinesische
Malerei der tetzen vier Jahrhunderte, Hamburg,
1949-50, No, 88.

Lent by Nu Wa GhaL

KUNG HSIEN (Pan-ch’ien), act. ca. 1656-
1682, Kiangsu-Nanking

100. MOUNTAIN LANDSCAPE, not il,

Harcdscroll; ink on paper; L. 3V 10"; W. IOi^".
Ex. Coll: Lo Chen-yu, scholar and collector, 1866-
1940.

Lent by Nelson Gallery of Art and Atkins Museum,
Kansas City, Missouri.

101. LANDSCAPE ALBUM, il. p. 126.

Album paintings; ink on paper; H. 8i/g”; W.
20 Title pages (2) with 2 seals of the artist
(G & W, p. 510, nos, 15, 16); 1 colophon by the
artist, dated Autumn, 1678; each leaf with 1 seal
of the artist (C k W, p, 510, no. 19).

Lent by Frank Caro, successor to C. T, Loo, New
York.

HSIAO YUN-TS'UNGj 1596-1673, Anhui

102. CLEAR SOUNDS AMONG HILLS
AND WATERS, il. p. 127.

Handscroll; ink and color on paper; L, 25'
1%"\ W. 12i/z". Title; "Shan Shui Ch’ing Yin”
written by Shen Feng, dated 1744; poem, inscrip¬
tion, signature, and 1 seal of the artist; dated 1664.
1st colophon after title by Chiang Pu-lo with 2
seals (C & W, p. 173); 2nd colophon after title
by Wang Ching-wei, dated 1943; 1st colophon after
the painting mentions "brush of Ni (Tsan) and
Huang (Rung-wang)/’ dated Winter, 181 L Signed
Hsin An-Hsiang ChihTan; 2nd colophon dated
1858. Seals of Chang Yun-Chung 19th-20th c.) The
Cleveland Museum of Art, John L. Severance
Collection.

103. ASKING FOR THE FORD, il. p.
128.

Fan painting; water color on paper; L, 2 3%";
H. 7*4". Signed Ch'ih Mu, Hsiao Yun-ts'img; seal
Chih-mu; dated 1672. 1 unidentified seal. The
title given by the artist refers to the Analects of
Confucius, X.VIII/6, in the sense of asking "what
is my way in life?" The subject seems to refer
also to the legend of the Magic Peach Garden
(see the poem by Wang Wei, tr. by Soame Jen y ns.
Selections from the Three Hundred Poems of the
T’ang Dynasty f London, 1940, p. 106). Ex. Coll:
T. Tomioka. Publ, k il: Naito (see 88), If. p. 154,
Lent by Seattle Art Museum, Eugene Fuller
Memorial Collection.

HUNG-JEN, act ca. 1700, Anhui

104, THE COMING OF AUTUMN,
il. p. 129.

Hanging scroll; ink on paper; H, 48"; W. 24^".
Poem, signature and seal of the artist:

In season comes the time for desolation;

A wooden hut is simple peace;

A mountain wind is off the mountain stream.
And in cold consonance are heard the stalks
and branches,

Chien-ehiang, Huog-jen.

— tr. by R. Edwards
2 unidentified collectors1 seals. Publ: C, C. Wang,
"Introduction to Chinese Painting,” Archives of
the Chinese Art Society of America , vol. II, 1947,

fig. 11.

Lent by Walter Hochstadter, New York.

CH’A SHIH-PIAOj 1615-1698, Anhui-
Kiangsu

105. THE RETREAT IN THE
MOUTH OF THE VALLEY, il. p. 130.

Hanging scroll; ink and slight color on paper;
H. 78^4"; W. 30i/2". Inscription, poem, and 2
seals of the artist. 3 unidentified collectors’ seals.
Lent by Eli Lilly, Indianapolis.

106, LANDSCAPE, not il.

Hanging scroll; ink on paper; H, 69"; W. 26s/",
Inscription and 2 seals of the artist.

Lent by Richard B. Hobart, Cambridge, Massachu¬
setts.

107. LANDSCAPE ALBUM IN VARI¬
OUS STYLES, not il.

Album paintings; ink, ink and color on paper;
H, W. 12$" (average — vary in size). Dated

1684. Leaf no. 5: "after Wang Meng original;”
leaf no. 6: "Cha Shih-piao learning from Wu
Chen.” 2 colophons.

Lent by Frank Caro, successor to C» T. Loo, New
York.

MEI CHTNG, 1623-1697, Anhui

108, ALBUM OF YELLOW MOUN¬
TAIN VIEWS, il, p. 132.

Album paintings; ink, ink and color on paper;
H. 10i%6"; W. 133/s". Dated 1695; seals of the

156

artist (C & W, p. 306, nos. 1, 2, 22, 26, 27), 3
unrecorded. 5 colophons by Mei Ch’ing; 3 com¬
mentary colophons, with 6 seals. Leaf no. 2: “after
Shen Chou”; no. 3 (il. p. ): “after Chao
Meng-fu”; no. 6: “after Ma Yao-fu (?)”; no.
7: “in Liu Sung-nien’s hamlet”; no. 8: “after Kao
K’o-kung”; no. 9: “yellow mountains in style of
Wang Meng”.

Lent by Frank Caro, successor to C. T. Loo, New
York.

109. LANDSCAPE ALBUM, il. p. 131.

Album paintings; ink, ink and color on paper;
H. Ill/"; W. 17i4". 8 different seals of the
artist (C Sc W, p. 306, nos. 1, 2, 22, 26, 27), 3
unrecorded.

Lent by Richard B. Hobart, Cambridge, Massachu¬
setts.

HUA YEN, ca. 1680-1755, Fukien-Kiangsu
(Yangchou) -Chekiang (Hangchou)

110. CONVERSATION IN AUTUMN,
il. p. 134.

Hanging scroll; ink and color on paper; H.
45^4"; W. 155/8". Inscription of the artist:

Brush and idea of Yuan masters.
Hsin-lo-shan-jen.

Dated Winter, 1732; 2 seals of the artist: Hua
Yen; Ch’iu Yueh (C Sc W, p. 381, nos. 5, 4). 1 of
the three colophons on the mounting is dated
1825. Publ: Bibl. 53, vol. 10, pi. 137. The Cleve¬
land Museum of Art, John L. Severance Collection.

111. ENJOYMENT OF THE CHRYS¬
ANTHEMUM FLOWERS, il. p. 136.

Hanging scroll; ink and color on paper; H.
25^4"; W. 45%6". Inscription and 2 seals of the
artist (C & W, p. 381, nos. 5, 15); dated 1753.
Lent by City Art Museum of St. Louis.

CHIN NUNG, 1687-1764, Chekiang-
Kiangsu ( Hangchou- Y angchou )

112. ALBUM WITH FIGURES AND
LANDSCAPE, il. p. 136.

Album paintings; ink drawing on paper; H.
12»4"; W. 17". Dated 1759; inscriptions on each
page are the artist’s own poetry.

1 artist’s seal, Chin-lao-ting (similar to C & W,
p. 201, no. 14).

Lent by Honolulu Academy of Arts.

HUANG SHEN, 1687-after 1768, Fukien-
Kiangsu

1 13. ALBUM OF FOUR LANDSCAPES
AND FOUR FIGURE SUBJECTS, il. p.
137.

Album paintings; ink and color on silk; H.
12 w* Dated Summer month, 15th

year of Ch’ien Lung (1750); inscription and 2
seals of the artist on each page.

Lent by Richard B. Hobart, Cambridge, Massachu¬
setts.

LI SHIH-CHO, act. ca. 1741, Korea

114. LANDSCAPE WITH A WATER¬
FALL, il. p. 140.

Hanging scroll; ink on paper; H. 35 W.
16*4". Inscription by the artist:

Ching Hao called himself Hung Ku-tzu and
wrote an essay titled Shan Shui Chu. He had
once boastfully criticized that Wu Tao-tzu
has brush but no ink, and Hsiang Yung has
ink but no brush. Therefore Hung Ku (Ching
Hao) has mastered both ink and brush, and
later Kuan Tung followed him. They are
the tops of the T’ang and Sung masters. I
am here imitating the merits of Ching Hao,
and have discarded his weaknesses.

Li Shih-cho.

— tr. by Wen Fong
3 seals of the artist (C Sc W, p. 144, no. 25), 2
unrecorded. 6 collectors’ seals. The Cleveland
Museum of Art, John L. Severance Collection.

CHANG TAO-WU, 18th c., unrecorded ( ?)

1 1 5. LANDSCAPE IN BLOSSOM
TIME, il. p. 138.

Handscroll; ink and color on paper; L. 4' 6";

H. 13»4". Poem by the artist:

The lights in the water joining the light above
the hill.

I have painted my old thatched huts in
Chiang-chou.

The houses lean closely to my plum trees,

I vaguely see my beloved one reflected in the
waters.

The spirits of a politician are not comparable
to those of calm icy-souls.

A lonely traveler can only dream about the
fragrance of those “Jade bones”.

I have a home, but cannot go back there.

Instead, I paint for your Excellency a picture
of my home.

Returning from examination Halls, my trials
have not been successful,

I am ashamed to make a living on paintings.

The old trees under the projected roofs are
natural subjects for painting,

A world full of rich grandeur is not what
I dare to fight for.

A disappointed scholar should return home
to become a cook.

I remember a faint fragrance which had
always accompanied my loud reading and
good books.

Someday when I completely chew the plum
blossom petals,

I will just be a chief-cook in the mountains.

Shui-wu-Tao-jen, Chang Tao-wu.

— tr. by Wen Fong

Dated 1793; 4 artist’s seals. Collectors’ seals.

Lent by Seattle Art Museum. Gift of Mr. and Mrs.

Frank S. Bayley, Jr.
p. 242.

CH’IEN TU, 1763-1850, Chekiang

116. LONGINGS TO TRAVEL: T IEN
T’AI, not il.

157

Handscroll; ink on paper; L. 43%6"; H. 8%6".
Inscription of the artist:

Done for Chieh Hang at his request.

Dated 15th day, 1st month, 1826; 3 artist’s seals
(C & W, p. 464, nos. 30, 13, 28). 7 other seals;
13 colophons, the 2nd dated 2nd month, 1827.
T’ien T'ai is a sacred mountain in Chekiang
province.

Lent by Frank Caro, successor to C. T. Loo, New
York.

117. THE BAMBOO PAVILION AT
HUANG-KANG, ii. p. 141.

Album leaf mounted as a hanging scroll; ink
and slight color on paper; H. 9i/£"; W. 10j4".
Signed and dated 1828 in the artist’s colopnon
mounted above the picture; 2 seals of the artist
(C & W, p. 464, nos. 13, 21). Ex.Coll: T. Tomioka.
Publ: Naito (see 88), opp. p. 176; Bibl. 57, vol. II,
p. 242.

Lent by Howard Hollis and Company, Cleveland.

WESTERN (EUROPEAN AND AMERI¬
CAN) DRAWINGS AND WATER
COLORS

118. THE RAPIDS OF THE DANUBE
NEAR GREIN, il. p. 46.

By Wolfgang Huber; German; ca. 1490-1553.
Pen and grey ink; drawing; H. 6i/£"; W. 8 s/A".
Dated 1531. Ex.Coll: Prince Liechtenstein.

Lent by National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
(Rosenwald Collection).

119. WALTERSBURG, il. p. 86.

By Pieter Brueghel the Elder; Flemish; 1525-
1569. Pen and brown ink; drawing; H. 12^4";
W. 10^4". Ex. Coll: James Bowdoin, III.

Lent by Bowdoin College Museum of Fine Arts.
Brunswick, Maine.

120. A WINTER LANDSCAPE, il. p.
68.

By Rembrandt Van Ryn; Dutch; 1606-1669. Reed
pen and bistre wash; drawing; H. 254"; W. 6%6".
Publ: A. M. Hind, Rembrandt , Cambridge, 1932,
p. Ill; F. Lugt, Mit Rembrandt in Amsterdam,
Berlin, 1920, p. 113, Abb. 71.

Lent by Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.

121. SHIP IN A TEMPEST, il. p. 123.

By Claude Gell£e (Claude Lorrain); French;
1600-1682. Ink and wash; drawing; H. 7^e"; W.
9%6". Ex.Coll: Spencer; Northwick; Bateson;

Oliver; Harris; Bareiss. Liber Veritatis, vol. Ill,
no. 44; Vasari Society, 2nd Series, IX, 14.

Lent by The Dudley Peter Allen Memorial Art
Museum, Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio.

122. LANDSCAPE WITH FIGURES, il.
p. 42.

By Claude Gell£e (Claude Lorrain); French;
1600-1682. Pen and bistre, with bistre wash over
black chalk; drawing; H. 10$4"; W. 15^4". Publ:
The Bulletin of The Cleveland Museum of Art,
June, 1928. The Cleveland Museum of Art, Gift
of Mr. and Mrs. Edward B. Greene.

123. ROCKY CLIFF AT TIVOLI, il. p.
110.

By Jan Brueghel the Elder; Flemish; 1628-after
1662. Pen with brown ink and blue and gray wash
on paper; drawing; H. 15"; W. 10^4". The Cleve¬
land Museum of Art, John L. Severance Collection.

124. SCENE IN A PARK, il. p. 132.

By Jean Honors Fragonard; French; 1932-1806.
Pen and water color; drawing; H. 7^4"; W. 9%".
Publ: The Bulletin of The Cleveland Museum of
Art, January, 1926. The Cleveland Museum of Art,
Dudley P. Allen Collection.

125. VIEW OF ARLES, il. p. 76.

By Vincent van Gogh; Dutch; 1853-1890. India
ink and reed pen; drawing; H. 17"; W. 21^".
Ex.Coll: Danforth.

Lent by Museum of Art, Rhode Island School of
Design, Providence.

126. VIEW OF STREAM BETWEEN
CLIFFS, not il.

By Paul Cezanne; French; 1839-1906. Ink and
water color on paper; H. 12"; W. 18i/£". Ex.Coll:
A. Vollard.

Lent by Rcsenberg and Stiebel, New York.

127. MARIN ISLAND, MAINE, 1914,
il. p. 120.

By John Marin; American; 1870-1953. Water
color on paper; H. 16"; W. 14^4". The Cleveland
Museum of Art, The Norman O. Stone and Ella
A. Stone Collection.

128. METAMORPHIC LANDSCAPE,
il. p. 113.

By Pavel Tchelitchew; Russian; 1898-. Pen and
India ink and wash on white paper; drawing; H.
1454"; w- ll3/4"- Signed and dated lower right,
1942.

Lent by Durlacher Brothers, New York.

158

ADDENDA— FOREIGN LOANS

ATTRIBUTED TO YEN TZU-P'ING, act.
after 1163.

129. PASTURE IN AUTUMN, il. p. 161.

Hanging scroll; ink and color on silk; H. 38%6";
W. l^Vio"- Publ: Sekai Bijutsu Zenshu, vol. 14
(China, no. Ill), no. 52; registered Important Cul¬
tural Property of Japan.

Lent by Kichizaemon Sumitomo, Kyoto.

WEN PO-JEN, 1502-1575, Kiangsu (See
also 57, 58).

130. LANDSCAPES OF THE SEA¬
SONS, il. p. 162.

2 of 4 hanging scrolls; ink and slight color on
paper; H. 75%"; W. 293,4". Dated 1551; inscription,
signature, and 2 seals of the artist on each picture;
additional inscription and seals, including 1 in¬
scription by Tung Ch’i-ch’ang. The pictures also
represent Myriad, or Ten Thousand (wan) aspects
of nature: Valleys, Pines, Bamboos, Waves, and
Mountains. Ex.Coll: T. Yamamoto; recorded in the
catalog, Chokaido Shoga Mokuroku, 1932, III/90.
Publ: Museum , Tokyo National Museum, no. 17,
August, 1952; registered Important Cultural Prop¬
erty of Japan.

Lent by The Tokyo National Museum.

CHAO TSO, act. ca. 1619, Kiangsu.

131. THE SCHOLAR AND THE
MONK IN THE BAMBOO GROVE PA¬
VILION, il. p. 163.

Hanging scroll; ink and color on paper; H. 34s^";
W. W. 12%e". Inscription, signature, and 2 seals
of the artist, C & W., p. 440, similar to nos. 4, 5.
Inscription and 2 seals of Ch’en Chi-ju (see 70).
Three collectors’ seals. Publ: Bibl. 63, 1/36; bibl.
57, 1/189.

Lent by The Osaka Municipal Art Museum (Abe
Collection), Osaka.

HUANG TAO-CHOU, 1585-1646, Fukien.

132. PINE TREES AND ROCKS, il. p.
164.

Handscroll; ink on silk; L. 91%"; H. 10 %". 4 in¬
scriptions, signature, and 3 seals of the artist. 11
collectors’ seals; 2 colophons with 4 seals. The pines
and rocks are from specific sites, in order: Pao-kuo
Temple, Peking; Altar of Heaven, Nanking; Pao
Shan island, T’ai hu; Huang Shan, Anhui. Publ:
Bibl. 63, 1/39; bibl. 57, 11/34.

Lent by The Osaka Municipal Art Museum (Abe
Collection), Osaka.

YUN SHOU-PTNG (Cheng-shu), 1633-
1690, Kiangsu (See also 92).

133. LANDSCAPE ALBUM, il. p. 164.

8-leaf album; ink on paper; H. 11%"; W. 17%".
Dated 1687; signatures and 6 seals of the artist, C
& W., p. 356, nos. 33, 9, 23, 24, 6. Publ: Chokai do
Shoga Mokuroku , VI/ 107 (Catalog of the Yamamoto
Coll.); Yun Nan-tien-to-Shih-Vao, Tokyo, 1953
Lent by Kanichi Sumitomo, Oiso.

TAO-CHI (Shih-t’ao), before 1645-after
1704, Honan (See also 94-97).

134. .EIGHT VIEWS OF HUANG
SHAN, il. p. 165.

8-leaf album; ink and color on paper; H. 8";
W. 10ii46". Inscriptions, signatures, and 7 seals
of the artist, C & W., p. 425, nos. 2, 3, 7, 1. Publ:
Bibl. 57, 11/142; Shih-Vao Huang-shan Pa-hsiang,
Tokyo, 1953 (complete); registered Important Cul¬
tural Property of Japan.

Lent by Kanichi Sumitomo, Oiso.

SHIH CHUNG, 1437-1517, Kiangsu (Nan¬
king). (See also 43).

135. WINTER, il. p. 166.

Hanging scroll; ink on silk; H. 39 %"; W. 20%".
Dated 1506, originally one of four landscapes of the
four seasons. Inscription, poem, and 4 seals of the
artist; 2 collectors’ seals. The poem reads in part:
“The snow is piling on the empty mountain,
the year of the world is drawing to its clQse.
The water freezes in the wintry river; a man is
holding out his angling line. The wine is fresh;
I would invite my neighbour, but now my
purse is empty like my jar. The plum trees open
in the southern village, and all their twigs are
full of fragrant scents. You must go out into
the snow to pick the flowers, as said by Meng
Chiao in the poem he wrote while riding on
a donkey.’’

—Bibl. 57, vol. 1, p. 90.

Publ: W. Speiser and H. Franke, “Eine Winterland-
schaft des Shih Chung (1437-nach 1517)“, Ostasi-
atische Zeitschrift, N. F. 1936, pp. 134-139.

Lent by Museum fur Ostasiatische Kunst, Cologne.

CHANG FENG (Ta-feng), act. ca. 1645-
1670, Kiangsu ((Nanking).

136. SKETCH ALBUM WITH LAND¬
SCAPES, il. p. 167.

7 leaves of an album; ink on paper; H. 14"; W.
IO34". Signatures and 5 different seals of the artist
repeated 15 times. Subjects: Near detail of a pine
tree; Landscape with distant view; Landscape with
bare willows, temple, and 2 figures on a bridge;
Rocks and potted plant; Landscape with island and
2 figures. Publ: Bibl. 57, vol. 2, pi. 197 (2 leaves).

Lent by Dr. R. Breuer, Beirut.

159

K’UN TS’AN (Shih-ch’i), act. ca. 1665,
Hunan-Nanking (See 93).

137. THE PAO-EN TEMPLE, ±1. p. 168.

Hanging scroll; ink and color on paper; H*
52i/£"; W. Dated 1663; inscription and 3

seals of the artist (C & W., p. 392, no. 12, and
similar to nos. 4t 11). One unidentified collector^
seal (?) at lower left

Publ: Bibb 57, p> 134; Shih-ch’i Shih-Vao Chien -
chiang, Tokyo, 1954.

Lent by Kanichi Sumitomo, Oiso.

160

129 Att. to Yen Tzu-p'ing

161

130

Wen Po-jen

162

131

Chao Tso

163

132

rt 0>'

> T

133

Ytm Shou-p'ing

164

j? * a *
«'* # *
* ** #t

4 £

* *

Huang Tao-chou

^ ^ Tao-chi

165

135

Shih Chung

166

167

106 Chang Feng

1 37

K'un-ts'cin

168

INDEX OF ARTISTS

Brueghel, Jan (the Elder) . 109, 110

Brueghel, Pieter (the Elder) . 86, 87, 158

Cezanne, Paul . . .
Ch’a Shih-piao

Chang Feng .

Chang Hung .

Chang Seng-yu . . .
Chang Tao-wu
Chang Tsung-ts’ang
Chang Yen-yuan
Chao Meng-fu -

Chao Tso .

Chao Yuan .

Chao Yung .

Ch’en Chi-ju .

Ch’en Ju-yen .

Ch’en Shun .

Ch’eng Cheng-k’uei

Chiang Ts’an .

Ch’ien Hsuan .

Ch’ien Tu .

Chin Nung .

Chin Wen-chin . . .

Ching Hao .

Ch’iu Ying .

Chou Ch en .

Chou Yung .

Chu Chieh .

Chu Jan .

Chu Ta .

. 107, 158

. 130, 131, 156

. 159, 167

. 153

. 152

. 138, 139, 157

. 109, 154

. 17, 18

. . 45, 46, 48, 57, 82, 131,
146, 150, 155, 157

. 159, 163

. 58, 60, 147

47, 48, 51, 57, 92, 93, 146

. 95, 152, 159

. 147

. 87-92, 151

. 98, 99, 152

. 30, 31, 46, 145

. 43-45, 146

.... 8, 139, 141, 157, 158

. 136-138, 157

. 61, 147

6, 8, 23, 27, 146, 155, 157

. 68

. 68, 69, 149

. 152

. 86, 87, 151

. 27, 149, 155

.... 95, 116, 122-125, 156

Fan K’uan . v . 27, 146

Fragonard, Jean Honore . 132, 133, 158

Gellee, Claude (Lorrain) .. 8, 9, 42, 119, 123, 158

Gogh, Vincent van . 76, 77, 158

Hsia Ch’ang . 62, 63, 148

Hsia Kuei . 36-38, 40, 64, 145

Hsiao Yun-ts’ung . 127, 128, 131, 156

Hsieh Ho . ®

Hsieh Shih-ch’en . 92, 93, 152

Hsu Pen . 58, 60, 147

Hsu Tao-ning . 24, 25, 27, 144

Hua Yen ... . 133-136, 157

Huang Kung-wang . 51, 100, 105, 152,

154, 155, 156

Huang Shen . 137, 157

Huang Ting . 107-109, 111, 154

Huber, Wolfgang . 46, 158

Huang Tao-chou . 159, 164

Hung-jen . 128, 129, 131, 156

Kao K’o-kung . 157

K’o Chiu-ssu . * . 145

Ku I-teh . 101, 102, 153

Ku K’ai-chih . 5, 15, 17

Kuan Tao-sheng . 148

Kuan T’ung . . . 27, 146, 155, 157

K’un-ts’an . 1 15-1 17, 168

Kung Hsien . 95, 116, 126, 154, 156, 160

Kuo Chung-shu . 122, 156

Kuo Hsi . 8, 23, 26, 27, 46, 48, 109, 145, 153

Kuo Hsu . 65, 69, 149

Kuo To-hsu .

Lan Ying . 97, 100, 152, 153

Li Ch’eng . 23, 27, 46, 48, 131, 146

Li Liu-fang . 96, 98, 152

Li Shih-cho . 139, 140, 157

Li Shih-hsing . 48, 57, 146

Li Sung . 35, 145

Li T’ang . 69, 93, 145

Liang K’ai . 40, 41, 146

Liu Chueh . 53, 55, 148

Liu Sung-nien . 145, 157

Lu Chih . 83, 85, 87, 88, 151

Ma Yuan . 04

Marin, John . 120, 158

Mei Ch’ing . 131-133, 156, 157

Mi Fei . 33

Mi Yu-jen . 33, 145

Mo Shih-lung . 95

Mu Ch’i . 41

Ni Tsan . 51-54, 57, 60, 73, 87, 98, 105, 107

131, 146, 150, 152-156

Pien Ching-chao . 61, 148

Rembrandt van Ryn . 7, 65, 68, 77, 158

Shen Chou . 53, 55, 57, 61, 63, 64, 73-79, 82,

92, 93, 116, 148-150, 155, 157

Sheng Mao-yeh . 97, 98, 152

Shih Chung . 65, 67, 149, 159, 166

Tai Chin . 64, 148

T’ang Yin . 68, 70-72, 77, 149

Tao-chi (Shih-t’ao) . 6, 53, 115-121, 126, 129,

133, 155, 159, 165

Tchelitchew, Pavel . 112, 115, 158

Ting Yun-p’eng . 100, 101, 153

Ts’ao Chih-po . 56, 57, 146

Tsung Ping . 6, 7, 17

Tu Chin . 64, 66, 133, 148

Tung Ch’i-ch’ang . 61, 93-95, 98, 100, 102,

105, 115, 116, 122, 145, 148, 151-153, 159
Tung Yuan .. 27, 48, 100, 146, 148, 149, 152, 155

Wang Chien . 102, 103, 110, 153

Wang Chien-chiang . 100, 153

Wang Fu . 148

Wang Hui . 8, 103—105, 111, 153

Wang Mcng .... 50-52, 57, 60, 100, 102, 104, 109,
111, 146, 153, 154, 156, 157

Wang Shih-chen . 21

Wang Shih-min . 102, 147

Wang To . 145

Wang Wei . 18, 19, 21, 40, 46, 110, 144, 156

Wang Yuan -ch’i ...95, 102, 105-107, 109, 116, 154
Wei Chih-ko . 153

102, 149-151

Wen Chia . 150

Wen Po-jen . 83-85, 102, 151, 159, 162

Wu Chen . 49, 51, 52, 73, 98, 100,

115, 146, 153, 156

Wu Li . 60, 110-113, 115, 132, 154

Yao T’ing-mei . 57, 59, 147

Yen Tzu-p’ing . 159, 161

Yen Wen-kuei . 27

Yuan Chiang . 109, 110, 154

Yun Hsiang . 83, 153

Yun Shou-p’ing . 110, 114-116, 154, 159, 164

169

LITHOPRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY
CUSHING - MALLOY, INC,, ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN, 1954

CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF ART

3 3032 00628 6086

c-^

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Chinese landscape painting"

See other formats